veitR/mod-playerbots
1
0
Fork 0
mirror of https://github.com/liyunfan1223/mod-playerbots.git synced 2026-06-20 15:39:25 +02:00
Code Issues Packages Projects Releases Wiki Activity
2,569 Commits 9 Branches 0 Tags
Commit Graph

2172 Commits

Author SHA1 Message Date
Keleborn
ca54cff6f5
Bug fix. Edge case where bots would get stuck in cities. (#2269) 
<!--
Thank you for contributing to mod-playerbots, please make sure that
you...
1. Submit your PR to the test-staging branch, not master.
2. Read the guidelines below before submitting.
3. Don't delete parts of this template.

DESIGN PHILOSOPHY: We prioritize STABILITY, PERFORMANCE, AND
PREDICTABILITY over behavioral realism.

Every action and decision executes PER BOT AND PER TRIGGER. Small
increases in logic complexity scale
poorly across thousands of bots and negatively affect all. We prioritize
a stable system over a smarter
one. Bots don't need to behave perfectly; believable behavior is the
goal, not human simulation.
Default behavior must be cheap in processing; expensive behavior must be
opt-in.

Before submitting, make sure your changes aligns with these principles.
-->

## Pull Request Description
<!-- Describe what this change does and why it is needed -->
When I refactored flight destinations, I wanted to make where bots go
more intentional. so I made it dependent on the
allianceHubsPerLevelCache and hodeHubsPerLevelCache. This system relied
on there being an innkeeper in each area that the bots would fly to.
However, not every zone has an innkeeper, and so there was an odd
situation where bots had nowhere to fly to. (Most notably at level 53.)
This solves that by hardcoding the flightmasters in those areas into the
cache.

I also put back in the city teleport probability check which was forcing
every bot to teleport to a city on level up.


## Feature Evaluation
<!--
If your PR is very minimal (comment typo, wrong ID reference, etc), and
it is very obvious it will not have
any impact on performance, you may skip these question. If necessary, a
maintainer may ask you for them later.
-->

<!-- Please answer the following: -->
- Describe the **minimum logic** required to achieve the intended
behavior.
- Describe the **processing cost** when this logic executes across many
bots.



## How to Test the Changes
<!--
- Step-by-step instructions to test the change.
- Any required setup (e.g. multiple players, number of bots, specific
configuration).
- Expected behavior and how to verify it.
-->



## Impact Assessment
<!-- As a generic test, before and after measure of pmon (playerbot pmon
tick) can help you here. -->
- Does this change increase per-bot/per-tick processing or risk scaling
poorly with thousands of bots?
    - - [x] No, not at all
    - - [ ] Minimal impact (**explain below**)
    - - [ ] Moderate impact (**explain below**)



- Does this change modify default bot behavior?
    - - [x] No
    - - [ ] Yes (**explain why**)



- Does this change add new decision branches or increase maintenance
complexity?
    - - [x] No
    - - [ ] Yes (**explain below**)



## Messages to Translate
<!--
Bot messages have to be translatable, but you don't need to do the
translations here. You only need to make sure
the message is in a translatable format, and list in the table the
message_key and the default English message.
Search for GetBotTextOrDefault in the codebase for examples.
-->
- Does this change add bot messages to translate?
    - - [x] No
    - - [ ] Yes (**list messages in the table**)

| Message key  | Default message |
| --------------- | ------------------ |
|			 |			      |
|			 |			      |

## AI Assistance
<!--
AI assistance is allowed, but all submitted code must be fully
understood, reviewed, and owned by the contributor.
We expect contributors to be honest about what they do and do not
understand.
-->
- Was AI assistance used while working on this change?
    - - [ ] No
    - - [x] Yes (**explain below**)
<!--
If yes, please specify:
- Purpose of usage (e.g. brainstorming, refactoring, documentation, code
generation).
- Which parts of the change were influenced or generated, and whether it
was thoroughly reviewed.
-->
Debugging and comments.



## Final Checklist

- - [x] Stability is not compromised.
- - [x] Performance impact is understood, tested, and acceptable.
- - [x] Added logic complexity is justified and explained.
- - [x] Documentation updated if needed (Conf comments, WiKi commands).

## Notes for Reviewers
<!-- Anything else that's helpful to review or test your pull request.
-->
 2026-04-04 13:00:01 +02:00
Crow
f5363c9465
Fix Warrior Battle Shout Spam (#2259) 
<!--
Thank you for contributing to mod-playerbots, please make sure that
you...
1. Submit your PR to the test-staging branch, not master.
2. Read the guidelines below before submitting.
3. Don't delete parts of this template.

DESIGN PHILOSOPHY: We prioritize STABILITY, PERFORMANCE, AND
PREDICTABILITY over behavioral realism.

Every action and decision executes PER BOT AND PER TRIGGER. Small
increases in logic complexity scale
poorly across thousands of bots and negatively affect all. We prioritize
a stable system over a smarter
one. Bots don't need to behave perfectly; believable behavior is the
goal, not human simulation.
Default behavior must be cheap in processing; expensive behavior must be
opt-in.

Before submitting, make sure your changes aligns with these principles.
-->

## Pull Request Description
<!-- Describe what this change does and why it is needed -->
There is a known problem that Warriors will repeatedly spam Battle Shout
(BS) if there is a stronger Blessing of Might (BoM) present that they
cannot override. It has been long known that the issue arises from the
lack of a BS trigger. It was not a problem in the past because BS and
BoM used to (erroneously) stack, and that was eliminated when AC ported
TC's stacking rules.

This PR adds a trigger for BS that prevents the bot from attempting to
cast it if a stronger BoM (or Greater BoM) is present. To do this, it
compares the AP bonus of any BoM/GBoM applied to the Warrior bot, and
then will attempt BS only if the Warrior has a stronger one.

I also did some minor reformatting of the other Warrior triggers, mostly
just deleting comments and extra braces.

## Feature Evaluation
<!--
If your PR is very minimal (comment typo, wrong ID reference, etc), and
it is very obvious it will not have
any impact on performance, you may skip these question. If necessary, a
maintainer may ask you for them later.
-->

<!-- Please answer the following: -->
- Describe the **minimum logic** required to achieve the intended
behavior.
- Describe the **processing cost** when this logic executes across many
bots.

The trigger is fairly complicated because it uses an AP comparison and
takes into account spell ranks and the talent Commanding Presence (which
increases the strength of BS). The bug could be solved by a very simple
aura check for BoM/GBoM. That's suboptimal though because BS will be
stronger if the Paladin has a lower rank of BoM or the Warrior has
Commanding Presence and the Paladin does not have Improved BoM.

At the end of the day, this is a new trigger that runs every tick, but
it's not really more expensive than generic BuffTriggers, which all do
this. And it is needed to solve a very annoying bug that essentially
renders Warriors useless in any optimized raid unless BS is disabled.

I don't believe this more robust trigger (as opposed to just calling
BuffTrigger and additionally checking for any BoM/GBoM aura) has any
further impact on performance--any added logic is practically free AFAIK
(e.g., checking if the bot has a particular talent is just an integer
lookup).


## How to Test the Changes
<!--
- Step-by-step instructions to test the change.
- Any required setup (e.g. multiple players, number of bots, specific
configuration).
- Expected behavior and how to verify it.
-->

Form a group with a Warrior and Paladin bot, with the Warrior bot having
a weaker BS than the Paladin's BoM (this is naturally the case at max
level, unless the Warrior has Commanding Presence and the Paladin does
not have Improved BoM). Have the Paladin cast BoM on the Warrior if it
has not done so automatically. Enter combat and see if the Warrior uses
BS. Try again with the Warrior having a stronger BS.



## Impact Assessment
<!-- As a generic test, before and after measure of pmon (playerbot pmon
tick) can help you here. -->
- Does this change increase per-bot/per-tick processing or risk scaling
poorly with thousands of bots?
    - - [ ] No, not at all
    - - [x] Minimal impact (**explain below**)
    - - [ ] Moderate impact (**explain below**)

As noted above, this is a new BuffTrigger that runs every tick.

- Does this change modify default bot behavior?
    - - [ ] No
    - - [x] Yes (**explain why**)

Default behavior was broken.

- Does this change add new decision branches or increase maintenance
complexity?
    - - [x] No
    - - [ ] Yes (**explain below**)

This is, with respect to the code, a pretty complex trigger. But that
should not impact other logic, and if need be, there is a very simple
version that could be implemented that would at least fix the bug, as
noted above.

## Messages to Translate
<!--
Bot messages have to be translatable, but you don't need to do the
translations here. You only need to make sure
the message is in a translatable format, and list in the table the
message_key and the default English message.
Search for GetBotTextOrDefault in the codebase for examples.
-->
- Does this change add bot messages to translate?
    - - [x] No
    - - [ ] Yes (**list messages in the table**)

| Message key  | Default message |
| --------------- | ------------------ |
|			 |			      |
|			 |			      |

## AI Assistance
<!--
AI assistance is allowed, but all submitted code must be fully
understood, reviewed, and owned by the contributor.
We expect contributors to be honest about what they do and do not
understand.
-->
- Was AI assistance used while working on this change?
    - - [ ] No
    - - [x] Yes (**explain below**)
<!--
If yes, please specify:
- Purpose of usage (e.g. brainstorming, refactoring, documentation, code
generation).
- Which parts of the change were influenced or generated, and whether it
was thoroughly reviewed.
-->

I used Claude Sonnet 4.6. This is essentially the first PR that I
entirely vibe coded. I knew what the problem was and how to fix it,
including the conditions I wanted in the trigger, and the LLM did the
rest. I can tell you what each block does and why that's needed, but I
can't tell you how they all work technically.

I tested this ingame in scenarios where the available BS was stronger
and not as strong, and in each case, the correct behavior was observed.
I've since run several raids without BS disabled on my Warriors, and
they are correctly not using it (as my Ret Paladin is applying a
stronger BoM). The trigger does not show up as an expensive one with
pmon (unlike, say, VIgilance, which is probably the most expensive class
trigger in the mod (excluding any DK triggers just because I've never
used one so I have no idea)).

## Final Checklist

- - [x] Stability is not compromised.
- - [x] Performance impact is understood, tested, and acceptable.
- - [x] Added logic complexity is justified and explained.
- - [x] Documentation updated if needed (Conf comments, WiKi commands).

## Notes for Reviewers
<!-- Anything else that's helpful to review or test your pull request.
-->

---------

Co-authored-by: Keleborn <22352763+Celandriel@users.noreply.github.com>
Co-authored-by: bash <hermensb@gmail.com>
Co-authored-by: Revision <tkn963@gmail.com>
Co-authored-by: kadeshar <kadeshar@gmail.com>
 2026-04-04 12:59:45 +02:00
kadeshar
a87999bef5
Berserker Rage support (#2261) 
<!--
Thank you for contributing to mod-playerbots, please make sure that
you...
1. Submit your PR to the test-staging branch, not master.
2. Read the guidelines below before submitting.
3. Don't delete parts of this template.

DESIGN PHILOSOPHY: We prioritize STABILITY, PERFORMANCE, AND
PREDICTABILITY over behavioral realism.

Every action and decision executes PER BOT AND PER TRIGGER. Small
increases in logic complexity scale
poorly across thousands of bots and negatively affect all. We prioritize
a stable system over a smarter
one. Bots don't need to behave perfectly; believable behavior is the
goal, not human simulation.
Default behavior must be cheap in processing; expensive behavior must be
opt-in.

Before submitting, make sure your changes aligns with these principles.
-->

## Pull Request Description
<!-- Describe what this change does and why it is needed -->

Added Berserker Rage usage (in combat and outside combat) for Warrior
(all specs)

Related with: #1755 

## How to Test the Changes
<!--
- Step-by-step instructions to test the change.
- Any required setup (e.g. multiple players, number of bots, specific
configuration).
- Expected behavior and how to verify it.
-->

- invite warrior to party
- [optional] start combat (for example with dummy)
- use command `.aura 6215`
- bot should cast Berserker Rage

## Impact Assessment
<!-- As a generic test, before and after measure of pmon (playerbot pmon
tick) can help you here. -->
- Does this change increase per-bot/per-tick processing or risk scaling
poorly with thousands of bots?
    - - [x] No, not at all
    - - [ ] Minimal impact (**explain below**)
    - - [ ] Moderate impact (**explain below**)



- Does this change modify default bot behavior?
    - - [ ] No
    - - [x] Yes (**explain why**)

Warriors use Berserker Rage when they got fear, sleep or sap

- Does this change add new decision branches or increase maintenance
complexity?
    - - [x] No
    - - [ ] Yes (**explain below**)



## Messages to Translate
<!--
Bot messages have to be translatable, but you don't need to do the
translations here. You only need to make sure
the message is in a translatable format, and list in the table the
message_key and the default English message.
Search for GetBotTextOrDefault in the codebase for examples.
-->
- Does this change add bot messages to translate?
    - - [x] No
    - - [ ] Yes (**list messages in the table**)

| Message key  | Default message |
| --------------- | ------------------ |
|			 |			      |
|			 |			      |

## AI Assistance
<!--
AI assistance is allowed, but all submitted code must be fully
understood, reviewed, and owned by the contributor.
We expect contributors to be honest about what they do and do not
understand.
-->
- Was AI assistance used while working on this change?
    - - [ ] No
    - - [x] Yes (**explain below**)
<!--
If yes, please specify:
- Purpose of usage (e.g. brainstorming, refactoring, documentation, code
generation).
- Which parts of the change were influenced or generated, and whether it
was thoroughly reviewed.
-->

Copilot CLI to review

## Final Checklist

- - [x] Stability is not compromised.
- - [x] Performance impact is understood, tested, and acceptable.
- - [x] Added logic complexity is justified and explained.
- - [x] Documentation updated if needed (Conf comments, WiKi commands).

## Notes for Reviewers
<!-- Anything else that's helpful to review or test your pull request.
-->

<img width="324" height="125" alt="obraz"
src="https://github.com/user-attachments/assets/e502f1c1-88f4-42a1-b07b-fc9ef3fd318b"
/>

[Berserker Rage performance
test.txt](https://github.com/user-attachments/files/26333365/Berserker.Rage.performance.test.txt)
 2026-04-03 22:32:32 -07:00
kadeshar
30c142aaca
Challenging Roar support (#2238) 
<!--
Thank you for contributing to mod-playerbots, please make sure that
you...
1. Submit your PR to the test-staging branch, not master.
2. Read the guidelines below before submitting.
3. Don't delete parts of this template.

DESIGN PHILOSOPHY: We prioritize STABILITY, PERFORMANCE, AND
PREDICTABILITY over behavioral realism.

Every action and decision executes PER BOT AND PER TRIGGER. Small
increases in logic complexity scale
poorly across thousands of bots and negatively affect all. We prioritize
a stable system over a smarter
one. Bots don't need to behave perfectly; believable behavior is the
goal, not human simulation.
Default behavior must be cheap in processing; expensive behavior must be
opt-in.

Before submitting, make sure your changes aligns with these principles.
-->

## Pull Request Description
<!-- Describe what this change does and why it is needed -->
Added Challenging Roar support to druid taunt spell
Related with: #2002 

## How to Test the Changes
<!--
- Step-by-step instructions to test the change.
- Any required setup (e.g. multiple players, number of bots, specific
configuration).
- Expected behavior and how to verify it.
-->

- run dungeon with druid tank and monitor spell usage


## Impact Assessment
<!-- As a generic test, before and after measure of pmon (playerbot pmon
tick) can help you here. -->
- Does this change increase per-bot/per-tick processing or risk scaling
poorly with thousands of bots?
    - - [x] No, not at all
    - - [ ] Minimal impact (**explain below**)
    - - [ ] Moderate impact (**explain below**)



- Does this change modify default bot behavior?
    - - [ ] No
    - - [x] Yes (**explain why**)

Druid also use Challenging Roar as taunt spell


- Does this change add new decision branches or increase maintenance
complexity?
    - - [x] No
    - - [ ] Yes (**explain below**)



## Messages to Translate
<!--
Bot messages have to be translatable, but you don't need to do the
translations here. You only need to make sure
the message is in a translatable format, and list in the table the
message_key and the default English message.
Search for GetBotTextOrDefault in the codebase for examples.
-->
- Does this change add bot messages to translate?
    - - [x] No
    - - [ ] Yes (**list messages in the table**)

| Message key  | Default message |
| --------------- | ------------------ |
|			 |			      |
|			 |			      |

## AI Assistance
<!--
AI assistance is allowed, but all submitted code must be fully
understood, reviewed, and owned by the contributor.
We expect contributors to be honest about what they do and do not
understand.
-->
- Was AI assistance used while working on this change?
    - - [x] No
    - - [ ] Yes (**explain below**)
<!--
If yes, please specify:
- Purpose of usage (e.g. brainstorming, refactoring, documentation, code
generation).
- Which parts of the change were influenced or generated, and whether it
was thoroughly reviewed.
-->



## Final Checklist

- - [x] Stability is not compromised.
- - [x] Performance impact is understood, tested, and acceptable.
- - [x] Added logic complexity is justified and explained.
- - [x] Documentation updated if needed (Conf comments, WiKi commands).

## Notes for Reviewers
<!-- Anything else that's helpful to review or test your pull request.
-->
 2026-04-03 22:31:42 -07:00
kadeshar
d07ddb14d0
Paladin use bubble heal strategy (#2244) 
<!--
Thank you for contributing to mod-playerbots, please make sure that
you...
1. Submit your PR to the test-staging branch, not master.
2. Read the guidelines below before submitting.
3. Don't delete parts of this template.

DESIGN PHILOSOPHY: We prioritize STABILITY, PERFORMANCE, AND
PREDICTABILITY over behavioral realism.

Every action and decision executes PER BOT AND PER TRIGGER. Small
increases in logic complexity scale
poorly across thousands of bots and negatively affect all. We prioritize
a stable system over a smarter
one. Bots don't need to behave perfectly; believable behavior is the
goal, not human simulation.
Default behavior must be cheap in processing; expensive behavior must be
opt-in.

Before submitting, make sure your changes aligns with these principles.
-->

## Pull Request Description
<!-- Describe what this change does and why it is needed -->

Added support for bubble heal strategy.
Adjusted emergency action order

## How to Test the Changes
<!--
- Step-by-step instructions to test the change.
- Any required setup (e.g. multiple players, number of bots, specific
configuration).
- Expected behavior and how to verify it.
-->

- invite paladin bot to party
- check that bot dont have `healer dps` strategy
- start combat (with for example dummy)
- use `.damage 20000` where 20000 is near max health of bot
- use `.unaura 25771` until bot use Divine Shield
- bot should heal himself 

## Impact Assessment
<!-- As a generic test, before and after measure of pmon (playerbot pmon
tick) can help you here. -->
- Does this change increase per-bot/per-tick processing or risk scaling
poorly with thousands of bots?
    - - [x] No, not at all
    - - [ ] Minimal impact (**explain below**)
    - - [ ] Moderate impact (**explain below**)



- Does this change modify default bot behavior?
    - - [ ] No
    - - [x] Yes (**explain why**)

Paladin bot heal himself without `healer dps` while Divine Shield


- Does this change add new decision branches or increase maintenance
complexity?
    - - [x] No
    - - [ ] Yes (**explain below**)



## Messages to Translate
<!--
Bot messages have to be translatable, but you don't need to do the
translations here. You only need to make sure
the message is in a translatable format, and list in the table the
message_key and the default English message.
Search for GetBotTextOrDefault in the codebase for examples.
-->
- Does this change add bot messages to translate?
    - - [x] No
    - - [ ] Yes (**list messages in the table**)

| Message key  | Default message |
| --------------- | ------------------ |
|			 |			      |
|			 |			      |

## AI Assistance
<!--
AI assistance is allowed, but all submitted code must be fully
understood, reviewed, and owned by the contributor.
We expect contributors to be honest about what they do and do not
understand.
-->
- Was AI assistance used while working on this change?
    - - [x] No
    - - [ ] Yes (**explain below**)
<!--
If yes, please specify:
- Purpose of usage (e.g. brainstorming, refactoring, documentation, code
generation).
- Which parts of the change were influenced or generated, and whether it
was thoroughly reviewed.
-->



## Final Checklist

- - [x] Stability is not compromised.
- - [x] Performance impact is understood, tested, and acceptable.
- - [x] Added logic complexity is justified and explained.
- - [x] Documentation updated if needed (Conf comments, WiKi commands).

## Notes for Reviewers
<!-- Anything else that's helpful to review or test your pull request.
-->

<img width="297" height="142" alt="obraz"
src="https://github.com/user-attachments/assets/5e35341b-2b23-4d34-b0c6-dc228823850f"
/>
 2026-04-03 22:31:17 -07:00
bashermens
c0390a24fd
feat(Performance): BotActiveAlone activity interval fixes and default settings for avg player (#2250) 
<!--
Thank you for contributing to mod-playerbots, please make sure that
you...
1. Submit your PR to the test-staging branch, not master.
2. Read the guidelines below before submitting.
3. Don't delete parts of this template.

DESIGN PHILOSOPHY: We prioritize STABILITY, PERFORMANCE, AND
PREDICTABILITY over behavioral realism.

Every action and decision executes PER BOT AND PER TRIGGER. Small
increases in logic complexity scale
poorly across thousands of bots and negatively affect all. We prioritize
a stable system over a smarter
one. Bots don't need to behave perfectly; believable behavior is the
goal, not human simulation.
Default behavior must be cheap in processing; expensive behavior must be
opt-in.

Before submitting, make sure your changes aligns with these principles.
-->

## Pull Request Description

- Bugfix the jittering on/off of botAlone activity
- BotActiveAlone activity duration configurable
- Updated the default config values for general user for a smoother
experience
- Added offset jittering for the check allowedActivity and check next AI
delay to prevent cpu spikes

(disabled WhenIsFriend can cause race conditions)

## Feature Evaluation
<!--
If your PR is very minimal (comment typo, wrong ID reference, etc), and
it is very obvious it will not have
any impact on performance, you may skip these question. If necessary, a
maintainer may ask you for them later.
-->

<!-- Please answer the following: -->
- Describe the **minimum logic** required to achieve the intended
behavior.
- Describe the **processing cost** when this logic executes across many
bots.



## How to Test the Changes
<!--
- Step-by-step instructions to test the change.
- Any required setup (e.g. multiple players, number of bots, specific
configuration).
- Expected behavior and how to verify it.
-->



## Impact Assessment
<!-- As a generic test, before and after measure of pmon (playerbot pmon
tick) can help you here. -->
- Does this change increase per-bot/per-tick processing or risk scaling
poorly with thousands of bots?
    - - [ ] No, not at all
    - - [ ] Minimal impact (**explain below**)
    - - [x] Moderate impact (**explain below**)

In a positive way, bots in your zone and 150 radius will always be
active, meanwhile other bots will be active 40%
of the time with intervals for 60 seconds per bot. With much lower
latencies. All configurable without say.

40% and 60 seconds for more balance for those who seek bots create world
feel more natural and live vs bots leveling without killing the server
performance. Why not 50 due activity of bots itself 40% will result more
into 45-50% like behavior and 50% prolly more 55%-60%. This it not
something we want incorporate when calculating the value since it
depends on various config and situation. But 40% is good base with
default config.

- Does this change modify default bot behavior?
    - - [x] No
    - - [ ] Yes (**explain why**)



- Does this change add new decision branches or increase maintenance
complexity?
    - - [x] No
    - - [ ] Yes (**explain below**)



## Messages to Translate
<!--
Bot messages have to be translatable, but you don't need to do the
translations here. You only need to make sure
the message is in a translatable format, and list in the table the
message_key and the default English message.
Search for GetBotTextOrDefault in the codebase for examples.
-->
- Does this change add bot messages to translate?
    - - [x] No
    - - [ ] Yes (**list messages in the table**)

| Message key  | Default message |
| --------------- | ------------------ |
|			 |			      |
|			 |			      |

## AI Assistance
<!--
AI assistance is allowed, but all submitted code must be fully
understood, reviewed, and owned by the contributor.
We expect contributors to be honest about what they do and do not
understand.
-->
- Was AI assistance used while working on this change?
    - - [x] No
    - - [ ] Yes (**explain below**)
<!--
If yes, please specify:
- Purpose of usage (e.g. brainstorming, refactoring, documentation, code
generation).
- Which parts of the change were influenced or generated, and whether it
was thoroughly reviewed.
-->



## Final Checklist

- - [x] Stability is not compromised.
- - [x] Performance impact is understood, tested, and acceptable.
- - [x] Added logic complexity is justified and explained.
- - [x] Documentation updated if needed (Conf comments, WiKi commands).

## Notes for Reviewers
<!-- Anything else that's helpful to review or test your pull request.
-->

---------

Co-authored-by: Keleborn <22352763+Celandriel@users.noreply.github.com>
Co-authored-by: Revision <tkn963@gmail.com>
Co-authored-by: kadeshar <kadeshar@gmail.com>
 2026-04-03 14:54:46 -07:00
Chris Lacy
579f972666
fix: invert NoRtiTrigger condition so mark rti strategy works (#2256) 
## Summary
- `NoRtiTrigger::IsActive()` returns `target != nullptr`, meaning it
only fires when a raid icon is **already** assigned — creating a
chicken-and-egg problem where the bot never places the first mark
- Invert to `target == nullptr` so the trigger fires when **no** mark
exists, prompting `MarkRtiAction` to mark the lowest-HP unmarked
attacker
- Once a mark is placed, the trigger stops firing until the marked
target dies

## Test plan
- [ ] Add `mark rti` strategy to a tank bot via `co +mark rti`
- [ ] Enter combat with multiple mobs — bot should auto-mark lowest HP
target with skull
- [ ] Verify mark persists until target dies, then bot marks next target
- [ ] Verify no marking occurs out of combat

🤖 Generated with [Claude Code](https://claude.com/claude-code)

---------

Co-authored-by: Keleborn <22352763+Celandriel@users.noreply.github.com>
Co-authored-by: bash <hermensb@gmail.com>
Co-authored-by: Revision <tkn963@gmail.com>
Co-authored-by: kadeshar <kadeshar@gmail.com>
Co-authored-by: Claude Opus 4.6 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>
 2026-04-03 13:29:23 -07:00
Crow
15bf0ab427
Fix Shaman Weapon Enchants & Cure Toxins/Cleanse Spirit (#2234) 
<!--
Thank you for contributing to mod-playerbots, please make sure that
you...
1. Submit your PR to the test-staging branch, not master.
2. Read the guidelines below before submitting.
3. Don't delete parts of this template.

DESIGN PHILOSOPHY: We prioritize STABILITY, PERFORMANCE, AND
PREDICTABILITY over behavioral realism.

Every action and decision executes PER BOT AND PER TRIGGER. Small
increases in logic complexity scale
poorly across thousands of bots and negatively affect all. We prioritize
a stable system over a smarter
one. Bots don't need to behave perfectly; believable behavior is the
goal, not human simulation.
Default behavior must be cheap in processing; expensive behavior must be
opt-in.

Before submitting, make sure your changes aligns with these principles.
-->

## Pull Request Description
<!-- Describe what this change does and why it is needed -->

1. I've been having persistent issues with Enhancement Shamans sometimes
applying Rockbiter to both weapons instead of MH Windfury and OH
Flametongue. Rockbiter is the alternative for Flametongue and, through
Flametongue, the alternative for Windfury. But there seemed to be no
obvious reason why a Shaman that had all three abilities would ever use
Rockbiter, which costs more mana than Windfury and Flametongue. Claude's
take on it is that there is instability from ItemForSpellValue related
to its poor way of distinguishing handedness, in addition to it having a
1-second cache, which can cause in some scenarios stale caches for the
action running on each hand back-to-back. I still can't say I fully
understand why the issue exists, but the most straightforward fix that
should prevent this from happening is to just have separate mainhand and
offhand actions for each enchant. So that's what this PR does. The
relevant ActionNodes are now:
 
- The MH-specific chain for Enhancement is WF -> FT -> RB. In practice,
Enhancement should never apply RB because all Shamans under level 10
(when FT is learned) are considered Elemental. The FT -> RB node is just
for Elemental.
- The MH-specific Resto chain (not that Resto can dual-wield) is EL ->
FT -> RB. Againt, FT -> RB is just for Elemental.
- OH for Enhancement is only FT. You cannot be Enhancement before level
10, nor can Enhancement dual-wield before level 40, so no alternative is
needed.

3. I commented out Frostbrand Weapon actions/triggers because the
ability is not included in any strategy. I didn't delete the code
because in the future somebody might want to implement it as I
understand it can be useful for Enhancement Shamans in PvP.
4. Shamans are coded to use "cure poison" and "cure disease", which do
not exist in WotLK, having been combined into Cure Toxins. Wishmaster
has PR #1844 that has been open on this for a long time, but I decided
to correct the abilities here anyway as he was going for a more limited
approach, and I decided to rename all the actions and redo the structure
to rely on ActionNode alternatives, which is pretty much the exact
framework that should be used for this type of situation w/r/t bots.
Now, Shamans prefer Cleanse Spirit (Resto talent, which costs the same
as Cure Toxins and also dispels curses), with an alternative of Cure
Toxins (for poisons and disease only). I tested this and it seems to
work well.
5. I deleted empty ActionNodes.
6. I did some cleanup of formatting and such, but this is not intended
to be a comprehensive refactor.


## Feature Evaluation
<!--
If your PR is very minimal (comment typo, wrong ID reference, etc), and
it is very obvious it will not have
any impact on performance, you may skip these question. If necessary, a
maintainer may ask you for them later.
-->

<!-- Please answer the following: -->
- Describe the **minimum logic** required to achieve the intended
behavior.
- Describe the **processing cost** when this logic executes across many
bots.

I've followed the general intended structure of class strategies with
triggers and actions. The same triggers exist, just different actions
are called based on the trigger that fires, so I don't think there
should be any impact on performance.

## How to Test the Changes
<!--
- Step-by-step instructions to test the change.
- Any required setup (e.g. multiple players, number of bots, specific
configuration).
- Expected behavior and how to verify it.
-->

The best way to get a grasp on if things work is probably to just do
group play for a while with Shamans and make sure they apply the right
enchants and properly cast Cleanse Spirit and Cure Toxins.

## Impact Assessment
<!-- As a generic test, before and after measure of pmon (playerbot pmon
tick) can help you here. -->
- Does this change increase per-bot/per-tick processing or risk scaling
poorly with thousands of bots?
    - - [x] No, not at all
    - - [ ] Minimal impact (**explain below**)
    - - [ ] Moderate impact (**explain below**)



- Does this change modify default bot behavior?
    - - [ ] No
    - - [x] Yes (**explain why**)

Shamans previously did not cure poisons or disease at all, and now they
do with the default "cure" strategy applied.

- Does this change add new decision branches or increase maintenance
complexity?
    - - [ ] No
    - - [x] Yes (**explain below**)

One might say having separate actions per hand for enchants is somewhat
more complex, but ultimately I think it is less confusing to keep those
paths separate.

## Messages to Translate
<!--
Bot messages have to be translatable, but you don't need to do the
translations here. You only need to make sure
the message is in a translatable format, and list in the table the
message_key and the default English message.
Search for GetBotTextOrDefault in the codebase for examples.
-->
Does this change add bot messages to translate?
    - - [x] No
    - - [ ] Yes (**list messages in the table**)

| Message key  | Default message |
| --------------- | ------------------ |
|			 |			      |
|			 |			      |

## AI Assistance
<!--
AI assistance is allowed, but all submitted code must be fully
understood, reviewed, and owned by the contributor.
We expect contributors to be honest about what they do and do not
understand.
-->
Was AI assistance used while working on this change?
    - - [ ] No
    - - [x] Yes (**explain below**)
<!--
If yes, please specify:
- Purpose of usage (e.g. brainstorming, refactoring, documentation, code
generation).
- Which parts of the change were influenced or generated, and whether it
was thoroughly reviewed.
-->

I had Claude try to diagnose the weapon enchant issue. It proposed and
provided the separate MH/OH WF/FT actions. The other things were easy
enough for me to do.

## Final Checklist

- - [x] Stability is not compromised.
- - [x] Performance impact is understood, tested, and acceptable.
- - [x] Added logic complexity is justified and explained.
- - [x] Documentation updated if needed (Conf comments, WiKi commands).

## Notes for Reviewers
<!-- Anything else that's helpful to review or test your pull request.
-->

---------

Co-authored-by: Keleborn <22352763+Celandriel@users.noreply.github.com>
Co-authored-by: bash <hermensb@gmail.com>
Co-authored-by: Revision <tkn963@gmail.com>
Co-authored-by: kadeshar <kadeshar@gmail.com>
 2026-04-03 13:25:40 -07:00
kadeshar
76dd91c4fa
Hand of Freedom support (#2233) 
<!--
Thank you for contributing to mod-playerbots, please make sure that
you...
1. Submit your PR to the test-staging branch, not master.
2. Read the guidelines below before submitting.
3. Don't delete parts of this template.

DESIGN PHILOSOPHY: We prioritize STABILITY, PERFORMANCE, AND
PREDICTABILITY over behavioral realism.

Every action and decision executes PER BOT AND PER TRIGGER. Small
increases in logic complexity scale
poorly across thousands of bots and negatively affect all. We prioritize
a stable system over a smarter
one. Bots don't need to behave perfectly; believable behavior is the
goal, not human simulation.
Default behavior must be cheap in processing; expensive behavior must be
opt-in.

Before submitting, make sure your changes aligns with these principles.
-->

## Pull Request Description
Added Hand of Freedom action for paladin.
Related with: #2002 

## How to Test the Changes
<!--
- Step-by-step instructions to test the change.
- Any required setup (e.g. multiple players, number of bots, specific
configuration).
- Expected behavior and how to verify it.
-->

- invite paladin bot to party
- start fight (can use dummy target)
- apply some snare effect to bot or yourself (for example `.aura 1715`)
- bot should use hand of freedom

## Impact Assessment
<!-- As a generic test, before and after measure of pmon (playerbot pmon
tick) can help you here. -->
- Does this change increase per-bot/per-tick processing or risk scaling
poorly with thousands of bots?
    - - [x] No, not at all
    - - [ ] Minimal impact (**explain below**)
    - - [ ] Moderate impact (**explain below**)



- Does this change modify default bot behavior?
    - - [ ] No
    - - [x] Yes (**explain why**)

Yes, paladin bots start using Hand of Freedom

- Does this change add new decision branches or increase maintenance
complexity?
    - - [x] No
    - - [ ] Yes (**explain below**)



## Messages to Translate
<!--
Bot messages have to be translatable, but you don't need to do the
translations here. You only need to make sure
the message is in a translatable format, and list in the table the
message_key and the default English message.
Search for GetBotTextOrDefault in the codebase for examples.
-->
- Does this change add bot messages to translate?
    - - [x] No
    - - [ ] Yes (**list messages in the table**)

| Message key  | Default message |
| --------------- | ------------------ |
|			 |			      |
|			 |			      |

## AI Assistance
<!--
AI assistance is allowed, but all submitted code must be fully
understood, reviewed, and owned by the contributor.
We expect contributors to be honest about what they do and do not
understand.
-->
- Was AI assistance used while working on this change?
    - - [ ] No
    - - [x] Yes (**explain below**)
<!--
If yes, please specify:
- Purpose of usage (e.g. brainstorming, refactoring, documentation, code
generation).
- Which parts of the change were influenced or generated, and whether it
was thoroughly reviewed.
-->

OpenCode, as helper to create and review code

## Final Checklist

- - [x] Stability is not compromised.
- - [x] Performance impact is understood, tested, and acceptable.
- - [x] Added logic complexity is justified and explained.
- - [x] Documentation updated if needed (Conf comments, WiKi commands).

## Notes for Reviewers
<!-- Anything else that's helpful to review or test your pull request.
-->
<img width="424" height="93" alt="obraz"
src="https://github.com/user-attachments/assets/3cac4454-35af-474d-8ea0-67c462973c79"
/>
 2026-04-03 13:25:29 -07:00
dillyns
496d6c9e4c
Blood dk rotation update (#2227) 
<!--
Thank you for contributing to mod-playerbots, please make sure that
you...
1. Submit your PR to the test-staging branch, not master.
2. Read the guidelines below before submitting.
3. Don't delete parts of this template.

DESIGN PHILOSOPHY: We prioritize STABILITY, PERFORMANCE, AND
PREDICTABILITY over behavioral realism.

Every action and decision executes PER BOT AND PER TRIGGER. Small
increases in logic complexity scale
poorly across thousands of bots and negatively affect all. We prioritize
a stable system over a smarter
one. Bots don't need to behave perfectly; believable behavior is the
goal, not human simulation.
Default behavior must be cheap in processing; expensive behavior must be
opt-in.

Before submitting, make sure your changes aligns with these principles.
-->

## Pull Request Description
<!-- Describe what this change does and why it is needed -->
Improve the blood DK rotation, add hysteria use, improve blood pact use.
Basic Blood priority should be:
1. Keep diseases up
2. Use rune strike whenever possible
3. Use frost and death runes on Icy Touch (highest threat ability)
4. Use unholy runes on death strike to trigger more death runes
5. use blood runes on heart/blood strike

Hysteria should be used on a physical dps, or a tank if no physical dps
is available. Never a caster or healer.
Summon ghoul should be saved for death pact usage. They are honestly a
liability that aggros everything in range without the unholy talent that
turns them into a pet anyways.

## Feature Evaluation
<!--
If your PR is very minimal (comment typo, wrong ID reference, etc), and
it is very obvious it will not have
any impact on performance, you may skip these question. If necessary, a
maintainer may ask you for them later.
-->

<!-- Please answer the following: -->
- Describe the **minimum logic** required to achieve the intended
behavior.
Removed plague strike from the general rotation. It should only be used
for disease application.
Added death strike on "high unholy rune" trigger instead.
Remove raise dead from generic dk. Only cast it right before death pact.
Add hysteria to bloods default actions.
- Describe the **processing cost** when this logic executes across many
bots.
Minimal change



## How to Test the Changes
<!--
- Step-by-step instructions to test the change.
- Any required setup (e.g. multiple players, number of bots, specific
configuration).
- Expected behavior and how to verify it.
-->

To test rotation changes:
Use a combat parsing addon such as Details! or watch the combat log of a
Blood DK bot.
They should now use death strike instead of using unholy runes on plague
strike.

To test hysteria:
Ungrouped blood dk bots can be observed using it on themselves.
Create a group with the blood dk + casters/healers only. Observe that
they never use hysteria on the casters.
Create a group with blood dk + physical dps. Observe that they use
hysteria on a dps and not themselves.

To test blood pact:
I used GM command .damage to get my Blood DK bot into "critical health"
trigger. They will use raise dead then blood pact.

## Impact Assessment
<!-- As a generic test, before and after measure of pmon (playerbot pmon
tick) can help you here. -->
- Does this change increase per-bot/per-tick processing or risk scaling
poorly with thousands of bots?
    - - [x] No, not at all
    - - [ ] Minimal impact (**explain below**)
    - - [ ] Moderate impact (**explain below**)



- Does this change modify default bot behavior?
    - - [x] No
    - - [ ] Yes (**explain why**)



- Does this change add new decision branches or increase maintenance
complexity?
    - - [x] No
    - - [ ] Yes (**explain below**)



## Messages to Translate
<!--
Bot messages have to be translatable, but you don't need to do the
translations here. You only need to make sure
the message is in a translatable format, and list in the table the
message_key and the default English message.
Search for GetBotTextOrDefault in the codebase for examples.
-->
Does this change add bot messages to translate?
    - - [x] No
    - - [ ] Yes (**list messages in the table**)

| Message key  | Default message |
| --------------- | ------------------ |
|			 |			      |
|			 |			      |

## AI Assistance
<!--
AI assistance is allowed, but all submitted code must be fully
understood, reviewed, and owned by the contributor.
We expect contributors to be honest about what they do and do not
understand.
-->
Was AI assistance used while working on this change?
    - - [ ] No
    - - [x] Yes (**explain below**)
<!--
If yes, please specify:
- Purpose of usage (e.g. brainstorming, refactoring, documentation, code
generation).
- Which parts of the change were influenced or generated, and whether it
was thoroughly reviewed.
-->
Used for brainstorming and exploring the codebase to find similar
patterns.


## Final Checklist

- - [x] Stability is not compromised.
- - [x] Performance impact is understood, tested, and acceptable.
- - [x] Added logic complexity is justified and explained.
- - [x] Documentation updated if needed (Conf comments, WiKi commands).

## Notes for Reviewers
<!-- Anything else that's helpful to review or test your pull request.
-->
 2026-04-03 13:24:55 -07:00
Crow
79562be2e5
Fix Hunter Aspect Switching + Trigger Cleanups (#2203) 
# Pull Request

Note: When I reference Aspect of the Hawk below, it also means Aspect of
the Dragonhawk (the code will use Dragonhawk if the Hunter has it, Hawk
if not, they share actions, triggers, and strategies).

Hunter Aspects are currently bugged. All Hunters, regardless of spec or
strategy, are hardcoded to use Aspect of the Hawk when mana is at 70%+
and Aspect of the Viper when mana drops to "lowMana" from the config
(default is 15%), divided by 2.

This means the following:

- Hawk (bdps) and Viper (bmana) strategies are useless
- Pack (bspeed) and Wild (rnature) strategies are applied, but bots will
rapidly switch back and forth between Pack/Wild and Hawk/Viper,
depending on strategy and mana level.

This PR addresses the issues by doing the following:

- Global Hawk strategy is removed. Now you need to set bdps for Hunters
to use Hawk, but bdps remains the default Aspect strategy for all
Hunters.
- Dedicated Viper strategy is removed, leaving the global strategy.
However, Viper will be used (when lowMana/2) ONLY if the bot is set to
bdps. If the bot has the Wild or Pack strategy, they will not switch to
Viper at all. I did this because I am assuming if you are using Wild or
Pack, you need them for reasons other than to pump DPS.
- The threshold to switch back to Hawk is lowered from 70% to 60%. The
gap between lowMana/2 and 60% is now filled--if bdps is on, Hunters will
switch to Hawk whenever above the Viper threshold, _except_ for when
they have the Viper aura, in which case they will not switch to Hawk
until 60% mana. This lets the Hunter build back mana before swapping
back to Hawk (more like general player behavior) while still letting
them swap from other Aspects to Hawk without needing to be all the way
at 60% mana.
- Gets rid of a weird condition in the Hawk trigger that would make it
so that Hunters would switch to Hawk when at exactly 0 mana. I'm not
sure what the point of that is.

Also, I refactored the triggers a bit because I noticed there was some
dead code in there. I didn't do a comprehensive refactor, but there was
a lot of stuff that clearly didn't make sense even to my eyes, like
back-to-back returns. I think there's more unnecessary code even just in
the triggers, but I didn't want to get too into the weeds with this PR.

---

## Design Philosophy

We prioritize **stability, performance, and predictability** over
behavioral realism.
Complex player-mimicking logic is intentionally limited due to its
negative impact on scalability, maintainability, and
long-term robustness.

Excessive processing overhead can lead to server hiccups, increased CPU
usage, and degraded performance for all
participants. Because every action and
decision tree is executed **per bot and per trigger**, even small
increases in logic complexity can scale poorly and
negatively affect both players and
world (random) bots. Bots are not expected to behave perfectly, and
perfect simulation of human decision-making is not a
project goal. Increased behavioral
realism often introduces disproportionate cost, reduced predictability,
and significantly higher maintenance overhead.

Every additional branch of logic increases long-term responsibility. All
decision paths must be tested, validated, and
maintained continuously as the system evolves.
If advanced or AI-intensive behavior is introduced, the **default
configuration must remain the lightweight decision
model**. More complex behavior should only be
available as an **explicit opt-in option**, clearly documented as having
a measurable performance cost.

Principles:

- **Stability before intelligence**  
  A stable system is always preferred over a smarter one.

- **Performance is a shared resource**  
  Any increase in bot cost affects all players and all bots.

- **Simple logic scales better than smart logic**  
Predictable behavior under load is more valuable than perfect decisions.

- **Complexity must justify itself**  
  If a feature cannot clearly explain its cost, it should not exist.

- **Defaults must be cheap**  
  Expensive behavior must always be optional and clearly communicated.

- **Bots should look reasonable, not perfect**  
  The goal is believable behavior, not human simulation.

Before submitting, confirm that this change aligns with those
principles.

---

## Feature Evaluation

Please answer the following:

- Describe the **minimum logic** required to achieve the intended
behavior?
- Describe the **cheapest implementation** that produces an acceptable
result?
- Describe the **runtime cost** when this logic executes across many
bots?

I don't expect there to be any impact on costs, and if anything this PR
removes some unneeded checks from triggers.

---

## How to Test the Changes

- Step-by-step instructions to test the change
- Any required setup (e.g. multiple players, bots, specific
configuration)
- Expected behavior and how to verify it

The easiest way is to go shoot a dummy with Volley until low on mana and
then toggle on selfbot. You can do this with various Aspects active to
test.

## Complexity & Impact

Does this change add new decision branches?
- - [X] No
- - [ ] Yes (**explain below**)

Does this change increase per-bot or per-tick processing?
- - [X] No
- - [ ] Yes (**describe and justify impact**)

Could this logic scale poorly under load?
- - [X] No
- - [ ] Yes (**explain why**)
---

## Defaults & Configuration

Does this change modify default bot behavior?
- - [ ] No
- - [X] Yes (**explain why**)

Described above. Default behavior is broken.

If this introduces more advanced or AI-heavy logic:
- - [X] Lightweight mode remains the default
- - [ ] More complex behavior is optional and thereby configurable
---

## AI Assistance

Was AI assistance (e.g. ChatGPT or similar tools) used while working on
this change?
- - [ ] No
- - [X] Yes (**explain below**)

I asked Claude some questions about the triggers to make sure I didn't
screw anything up.

If yes, please specify:

- AI tool or model used (e.g. ChatGPT, GPT-4, Claude, etc.)
- Purpose of usage (e.g. brainstorming, refactoring, documentation, code
generation)
- Which parts of the change were influenced or generated
- Whether the result was manually reviewed and adapted

AI assistance is allowed, but all submitted code must be fully
understood, reviewed, and owned by the contributor.
Any AI-influenced changes must be verified against existing CORE and PB
logic. We expect contributors to be honest
about what they do and do not understand.

---

## Final Checklist

- - [X] Stability is not compromised
- - [X] Performance impact is understood, tested, and acceptable
- - [X] Added logic complexity is justified and explained
- - [X] Documentation updated if needed

---

## Notes for Reviewers

Anything that significantly improves realism at the cost of stability or
performance should be carefully discussed
before merging.

---------

Co-authored-by: Keleborn <22352763+Celandriel@users.noreply.github.com>
Co-authored-by: bash <hermensb@gmail.com>
Co-authored-by: Revision <tkn963@gmail.com>
Co-authored-by: kadeshar <kadeshar@gmail.com>
 2026-04-03 13:24:37 -07:00
Keleborn
7fa9ab7d34
Module update for CollisionChange (#2242) 
<!--
Thank you for contributing to mod-playerbots, please make sure that
you...
1. Submit your PR to the test-staging branch, not master.
2. Read the guidelines below before submitting.
3. Don't delete parts of this template.

DESIGN PHILOSOPHY: We prioritize STABILITY, PERFORMANCE, AND
PREDICTABILITY over behavioral realism.

Every action and decision executes PER BOT AND PER TRIGGER. Small
increases in logic complexity scale
poorly across thousands of bots and negatively affect all. We prioritize
a stable system over a smarter
one. Bots don't need to behave perfectly; believable behavior is the
goal, not human simulation.
Default behavior must be cheap in processing; expensive behavior must be
opt-in.

Before submitting, make sure your changes aligns with these principles.
-->

## Pull Request Description
<!-- Describe what this change does and why it is needed -->
Some code changes due to core update change from MMapFactory.h
->MapCollisionData.h


## Feature Evaluation
<!--
If your PR is very minimal (comment typo, wrong ID reference, etc), and
it is very obvious it will not have
any impact on performance, you may skip these question. If necessary, a
maintainer may ask you for them later.
-->

<!-- Please answer the following: -->
- Describe the **minimum logic** required to achieve the intended
behavior.
- Describe the **processing cost** when this logic executes across many
bots.



## How to Test the Changes
<!--
- Step-by-step instructions to test the change.
- Any required setup (e.g. multiple players, number of bots, specific
configuration).
- Expected behavior and how to verify it.
-->



## Impact Assessment
<!-- As a generic test, before and after measure of pmon (playerbot pmon
tick) can help you here. -->
- Does this change increase per-bot/per-tick processing or risk scaling
poorly with thousands of bots?
    - - [x] No, not at all
    - - [ ] Minimal impact (**explain below**)
    - - [ ] Moderate impact (**explain below**)



- Does this change modify default bot behavior?
    - - [x] No
    - - [ ] Yes (**explain why**)



- Does this change add new decision branches or increase maintenance
complexity?
    - - [x] No
    - - [ ] Yes (**explain below**)



## Messages to Translate
<!--
Bot messages have to be translatable, but you don't need to do the
translations here. You only need to make sure
the message is in a translatable format, and list in the table the
message_key and the default English message.
Search for GetBotTextOrDefault in the codebase for examples.
-->
Does this change add bot messages to translate?
    - - [x] No
    - - [ ] Yes (**list messages in the table**)

| Message key  | Default message |
| --------------- | ------------------ |
|			 |			      |
|			 |			      |

## AI Assistance
<!--
AI assistance is allowed, but all submitted code must be fully
understood, reviewed, and owned by the contributor.
We expect contributors to be honest about what they do and do not
understand.
-->
Was AI assistance used while working on this change?
    - - [ ] No
    - - [X] Yes (**explain below**)
<!--
If yes, please specify:
- Purpose of usage (e.g. brainstorming, refactoring, documentation, code
generation).
- Which parts of the change were influenced or generated, and whether it
was thoroughly reviewed.
-->
Identifying problematic areas generated by the change



## Final Checklist

- - [x] Stability is not compromised.
- - [x] Performance impact is understood, tested, and acceptable.
- - [x] Added logic complexity is justified and explained.
- - [x] Documentation updated if needed (Conf comments, WiKi commands).

## Notes for Reviewers
<!-- Anything else that's helpful to review or test your pull request.
-->
 2026-03-30 11:55:33 -07:00
bashermens
ac99f45696
Bugfix(issue-1878): floating players in certain conditions (#2245) 
<!--
Thank you for contributing to mod-playerbots, please make sure that
you...
1. Submit your PR to the test-staging branch, not master.
2. Read the guidelines below before submitting.
3. Don't delete parts of this template.

DESIGN PHILOSOPHY: We prioritize STABILITY, PERFORMANCE, AND
PREDICTABILITY over behavioral realism.

Every action and decision executes PER BOT AND PER TRIGGER. Small
increases in logic complexity scale
poorly across thousands of bots and negatively affect all. We prioritize
a stable system over a smarter
one. Bots don't need to behave perfectly; believable behavior is the
goal, not human simulation.
Default behavior must be cheap in processing; expensive behavior must be
opt-in.

Before submitting, make sure your changes aligns with these principles.
-->

## Pull Request Description

https://github.com/mod-playerbots/mod-playerbots/issues/1878

https://www.youtube.com/shorts/-HO-OosP0oY

## Feature Evaluation
<!--
If your PR is very minimal (comment typo, wrong ID reference, etc), and
it is very obvious it will not have
any impact on performance, you may skip these question. If necessary, a
maintainer may ask you for them later.
-->

<!-- Please answer the following: -->
- Describe the **minimum logic** required to achieve the intended
behavior.
- Describe the **processing cost** when this logic executes across many
bots.



## How to Test the Changes
<!--
- Step-by-step instructions to test the change.
- Any required setup (e.g. multiple players, number of bots, specific
configuration).
- Expected behavior and how to verify it.
-->



## Impact Assessment
<!-- As a generic test, before and after measure of pmon (playerbot pmon
tick) can help you here. -->
- Does this change increase per-bot/per-tick processing or risk scaling
poorly with thousands of bots?
    - - [x] No, not at all
    - - [ ] Minimal impact (**explain below**)
    - - [ ] Moderate impact (**explain below**)



- Does this change modify default bot behavior?
    - - [x] No
    - - [ ] Yes (**explain why**)



- Does this change add new decision branches or increase maintenance
complexity?
    - - [x] No
    - - [ ] Yes (**explain below**)



## Messages to Translate
<!--
Bot messages have to be translatable, but you don't need to do the
translations here. You only need to make sure
the message is in a translatable format, and list in the table the
message_key and the default English message.
Search for GetBotTextOrDefault in the codebase for examples.
-->
- Does this change add bot messages to translate?
    - - [x] No
    - - [ ] Yes (**list messages in the table**)

| Message key  | Default message |
| --------------- | ------------------ |
|			 |			      |
|			 |			      |

## AI Assistance
<!--
AI assistance is allowed, but all submitted code must be fully
understood, reviewed, and owned by the contributor.
We expect contributors to be honest about what they do and do not
understand.
-->
- Was AI assistance used while working on this change?
    - - [x] No
    - - [ ] Yes (**explain below**)
<!--
If yes, please specify:
- Purpose of usage (e.g. brainstorming, refactoring, documentation, code
generation).
- Which parts of the change were influenced or generated, and whether it
was thoroughly reviewed.
-->



## Final Checklist

- - [x] Stability is not compromised.
- - [x] Performance impact is understood, tested, and acceptable.
- - [x] Added logic complexity is justified and explained.
- - [x] Documentation updated if needed (Conf comments, WiKi commands).

## Notes for Reviewers
<!-- Anything else that's helpful to review or test your pull request.
-->

---------

Co-authored-by: Keleborn <22352763+Celandriel@users.noreply.github.com>
Co-authored-by: Revision <tkn963@gmail.com>
Co-authored-by: kadeshar <kadeshar@gmail.com>
 2026-03-27 14:54:24 -07:00
kadeshar
6db44b5296
Will of the forsaken (#2231) 
<!--
Thank you for contributing to mod-playerbots, please make sure that
you...
1. Submit your PR to the test-staging branch, not master.
2. Read the guidelines below before submitting.
3. Don't delete parts of this template.

DESIGN PHILOSOPHY: We prioritize STABILITY, PERFORMANCE, AND
PREDICTABILITY over behavioral realism.

Every action and decision executes PER BOT AND PER TRIGGER. Small
increases in logic complexity scale
poorly across thousands of bots and negatively affect all. We prioritize
a stable system over a smarter
one. Bots don't need to behave perfectly; believable behavior is the
goal, not human simulation.
Default behavior must be cheap in processing; expensive behavior must be
opt-in.

Before submitting, make sure your changes aligns with these principles.
-->

## Pull Request Description
<!-- Describe what this change does and why it is needed -->
Added Will of the Forsaken support. 
Made structure fix for affected files.

Partially resolves: #2002 

## How to Test the Changes
<!--
- Step-by-step instructions to test the change.
- Any required setup (e.g. multiple players, number of bots, specific
configuration).
- Expected behavior and how to verify it.
-->
- create/invite undead bot
- start fight (you can use dummy target)
- use `.aura 6215` to fear bot
- bot should use "Will of the Forsaken" to remove debuff


## Impact Assessment
<!-- As a generic test, before and after measure of pmon (playerbot pmon
tick) can help you here. -->
- Does this change increase per-bot/per-tick processing or risk scaling
poorly with thousands of bots?
    - - [x] No, not at all
    - - [ ] Minimal impact (**explain below**)
    - - [ ] Moderate impact (**explain below**)



- Does this change modify default bot behavior?
    - - [ ] No
    - - [x] Yes (**explain why**)

Undead bot use now "Will of the Forsaken" to remove charm, fear or
sleep.

- Does this change add new decision branches or increase maintenance
complexity?
    - - [x] No
    - - [ ] Yes (**explain below**)



## Messages to Translate
<!--
Bot messages have to be translatable, but you don't need to do the
translations here. You only need to make sure
the message is in a translatable format, and list in the table the
message_key and the default English message.
Search for GetBotTextOrDefault in the codebase for examples.
-->
- Does this change add bot messages to translate?
    - - [x] No
    - - [ ] Yes (**list messages in the table**)

| Message key  | Default message |
| --------------- | ------------------ |
|			 |			      |
|			 |			      |

## AI Assistance
<!--
AI assistance is allowed, but all submitted code must be fully
understood, reviewed, and owned by the contributor.
We expect contributors to be honest about what they do and do not
understand.
-->
- Was AI assistance used while working on this change?
    - - [ ] No
    - - [x] Yes (**explain below**)
<!--
If yes, please specify:
- Purpose of usage (e.g. brainstorming, refactoring, documentation, code
generation).
- Which parts of the change were influenced or generated, and whether it
was thoroughly reviewed.
-->

OpenCode to review changes


## Final Checklist

- - [x] Stability is not compromised.
- - [x] Performance impact is understood, tested, and acceptable.
- - [x] Added logic complexity is justified and explained.
- - [x] Documentation updated if needed (Conf comments, WiKi commands).

## Notes for Reviewers
<!-- Anything else that's helpful to review or test your pull request.
-->

<img width="325" height="77" alt="obraz"
src="https://github.com/user-attachments/assets/729cfdf8-3742-457c-9278-7fcce824e6d0"
/>

---------

Co-authored-by: Keleborn <22352763+Celandriel@users.noreply.github.com>
 2026-03-27 11:53:53 -07:00
FutterSillo
45aa6f2f8e
Update valid targets for Hunter Talent: "Improved Tracking" (#2218) 
<!--
Thank you for contributing to mod-playerbots, please make sure that
you...
1. Submit your PR to the test-staging branch, not master.
2. Read the guidelines below before submitting.
3. Don't delete parts of this template.

DESIGN PHILOSOPHY: We prioritize STABILITY, PERFORMANCE, AND
PREDICTABILITY over behavioral realism.

Every action and decision executes PER BOT AND PER TRIGGER. Small
increases in logic complexity scale
poorly across thousands of bots and negatively affect all. We prioritize
a stable system over a smarter
one. Bots don't need to behave perfectly; believable behavior is the
goal, not human simulation.
Default behavior must be cheap in processing; expensive behavior must be
opt-in.

Before submitting, make sure your changes aligns with these principles.
-->

## Pull Request Description
<!-- Describe what this change does and why it is needed -->

Updates the list of valid targets in NoTrackTrigger::IsActive() for the
hunter talent "Improved Tracking". Including:

        "track beasts",
        "track demons",
        "track dragonkin",
        "track elementals",
        "track giants",
        "track humanoids",
        "track undead",
        // "track hidden",
        // "find herbs",
        // "find minerals",
        // "find fish",
        // "find treasure",

This change ensures standard combat tracking is correctly recognized
while providing commented-out utility options (Hidden, Herbs, Minerals,
Fish, Treasure). This is specifically useful for "Selfbot" users who
want to maintain a specific utility tracking without the bot logic
automatically overriding it and switching back to "Track Humanoids".


## Feature Evaluation
<!--
If your PR is very minimal (comment typo, wrong ID reference, etc), and
it is very obvious it will not have
any impact on performance, you may skip these question. If necessary, a
maintainer may ask you for them later.
-->

<!-- Please answer the following: -->
- Describe the **minimum logic** required to achieve the intended
behavior.
- Describe the **processing cost** when this logic executes across many
bots.



## How to Test the Changes
<!--
- Step-by-step instructions to test the change.
- Any required setup (e.g. multiple players, number of bots, specific
configuration).
- Expected behavior and how to verify it.
-->

- Track valid Targets for "Improved Tracking" with a Hunter in selfbot.
Its stay the same.
- Track any other Targets for "Improved Tracking" with a Hunter in
selfbot. Its switch back to "Track Humanoids".



## Impact Assessment
<!-- As a generic test, before and after measure of pmon (playerbot pmon
tick) can help you here. -->
- Does this change increase per-bot/per-tick processing or risk scaling
poorly with thousands of bots?
    - [x] No, not at all
    - [ ] Minimal impact (**explain below**)
    - [ ] Moderate impact (**explain below**)



- Does this change modify default bot behavior?
    - [x] No
    - [ ] Yes (**explain why**)



- Does this change add new decision branches or increase maintenance
complexity?
    - [x] No
    - [ ] Yes (**explain below**)



## Messages to Translate
<!--
Bot messages have to be translatable, but you don't need to do the
translations here. You only need to make sure
the message is in a translatable format, and list in the table the
message_key and the default English message.
Search for GetBotTextOrDefault in the codebase for examples.
-->
Does this change add bot messages to translate?
- [x] No
- [ ] Yes (**list messages in the table**)

| Message key  | Default message |
| --------------- | ------------------ |
|			 |			      |
|			 |			      |

## AI Assistance
<!--
AI assistance is allowed, but all submitted code must be fully
understood, reviewed, and owned by the contributor.
We expect contributors to be honest about what they do and do not
understand.
-->
Was AI assistance used while working on this change?
- [x] No
- [ ] Yes (**explain below**)
<!--
If yes, please specify:
- Purpose of usage (e.g. brainstorming, refactoring, documentation, code
generation).
- Which parts of the change were influenced or generated, and whether it
was thoroughly reviewed.
-->



## Final Checklist

- [x] Stability is not compromised.
- [x] Performance impact is understood, tested, and acceptable.
- [x] Added logic complexity is justified and explained.
- [x] Documentation updated if needed (Conf comments, WiKi commands).

## Notes for Reviewers
<!-- Anything else that's helpful to review or test your pull request.
-->

---------

Co-authored-by: Keleborn <22352763+Celandriel@users.noreply.github.com>
Co-authored-by: bash <hermensb@gmail.com>
Co-authored-by: Revision <tkn963@gmail.com>
Co-authored-by: kadeshar <kadeshar@gmail.com>
 2026-03-27 10:38:54 -07:00
kadeshar
bbd9d3e37a
Wait for attack strategy migration (#2211) 
## Pull Request Description
Migration of "wait for attack" strategy from cmangos playerbots.

Resolves: https://github.com/mod-playerbots/mod-playerbots/issues/990

## Feature Evaluation
Optional strategy for bots which are in party with real player. 

## How to Test the Changes
- add strategy to bot "nc +wait for attack" and "co +wait for attack"
- set time via command "wait for attack time x" where x is time which
they wait in seconds (you should get response from bot)
- attack any target (for example dummy in main city)(bot should wait
with attack)

## Impact Assessment
    - [ ] No, not at all
    - [x] Minimal impact (**explain below**)
    - [ ] Moderate impact (**explain below**)

Performance wise only bots having this optinal strategy have additional
cost in multiplier which check every attack action that should be
execute.

- Does this change modify default bot behavior?
    - [x] No
    - [ ] Yes (**explain why**)



- Does this change add new decision branches or increase maintenance
complexity?
    - [x] No
    - [ ] Yes (**explain below**)



## Messages to Translate
Does this change add bot messages to translate?
- [ ] No
- [x] Yes (**list messages in the table**)

| Message key  | Default message |
| --------------- | ------------------ |
1740 | Please provide a time to set (in seconds)
1741 | Please provide valid time to set (in seconds) between 0 and 99
1742 | Wait for attack time set to %new_time seconds

## AI Assistance
Was AI assistance used while working on this change?
- [ ] No
- [x] Yes (**explain below**)
<!--
If yes, please specify:
- Purpose of usage (e.g. brainstorming, refactoring, documentation, code
generation).
- Which parts of the change were influenced or generated, and whether it
was thoroughly reviewed.
-->

Copilot CLI - help with migration



## Final Checklist

- [x] Stability is not compromised.
- [x] Performance impact is understood, tested, and acceptable.
- [x] Added logic complexity is justified and explained.
- [x] Documentation updated if needed (Conf comments, WiKi commands).

## Notes for Reviewers
<!-- Anything else that's helpful to review or test your pull request.
-->
 2026-03-27 10:38:46 -07:00
dillyns
b172e88010
Resto druids should always be in tree form (#2192) 
# Pull Request

Resto druids would not go into tree of life form when in combat until
certain triggers were hit.
They should be in tree of life form all the time.
Move tree form actions from the various triggers to default actions
instead, with highest priority

## Feature Evaluation

Please answer the following:

- Describe the **minimum logic** required to achieve the intended
behavior?|
When healer druids enter combat their first priority should be entering
tree form.
- Describe the **cheapest implementation** that produces an acceptable
result?
Add tree form action to default healer druid actions instead of
triggers.
- Describe the **runtime cost** when this logic executes across many
bots?
nil
---

## How to Test the Changes

- Have a resto druid bot with tree of life form talented.
- Enter combat
- The druid should immediately enter tree of life form

## Complexity & Impact

Does this change add new decision branches?
- - [x] No
- - [ ] Yes (**explain below**)

Does this change increase per-bot or per-tick processing?
- - [x] No
- - [ ] Yes (**describe and justify impact**)

Could this logic scale poorly under load?
- - [x] No
- - [ ] Yes (**explain why**)
---

## Defaults & Configuration

Does this change modify default bot behavior?
- - [x] No
- - [ ] Yes (**explain why**)

If this introduces more advanced or AI-heavy logic:
- - [x] Lightweight mode remains the default
- - [ ] More complex behavior is optional and thereby configurable
---

## AI Assistance

Was AI assistance (e.g. ChatGPT or similar tools) used while working on
this change?
- - [x] No
- - [ ] Yes (**explain below**)

If yes, please specify:

- AI tool or model used (e.g. ChatGPT, GPT-4, Claude, etc.)
- Purpose of usage (e.g. brainstorming, refactoring, documentation, code
generation)
- Which parts of the change were influenced or generated
- Whether the result was manually reviewed and adapted

AI assistance is allowed, but all submitted code must be fully
understood, reviewed, and owned by the contributor.
Any AI-influenced changes must be verified against existing CORE and PB
logic. We expect contributors to be honest
about what they do and do not understand.

---

## Final Checklist

- - [x] Stability is not compromised
- - [x] Performance impact is understood, tested, and acceptable
- - [x] Added logic complexity is justified and explained
- - [x] Documentation updated if needed

---

## Notes for Reviewers

Anything that significantly improves realism at the cost of stability or
performance should be carefully discussed
before merging.
 2026-03-27 10:38:39 -07:00
Crow
91eac70ca2
Implement Zul'Aman Strategies (#2186) 
# Pull Request

_Implement strategies for all bosses in Zul'Aman. See next post for
overview of implemented strategies._

---

## Design Philosophy

We prioritize **stability, performance, and predictability** over
behavioral realism.
Complex player-mimicking logic is intentionally limited due to its
negative impact on scalability, maintainability, and
long-term robustness.

Excessive processing overhead can lead to server hiccups, increased CPU
usage, and degraded performance for all
participants. Because every action and
decision tree is executed **per bot and per trigger**, even small
increases in logic complexity can scale poorly and
negatively affect both players and
world (random) bots. Bots are not expected to behave perfectly, and
perfect simulation of human decision-making is not a
project goal. Increased behavioral
realism often introduces disproportionate cost, reduced predictability,
and significantly higher maintenance overhead.

Every additional branch of logic increases long-term responsibility. All
decision paths must be tested, validated, and
maintained continuously as the system evolves.
If advanced or AI-intensive behavior is introduced, the **default
configuration must remain the lightweight decision
model**. More complex behavior should only be
available as an **explicit opt-in option**, clearly documented as having
a measurable performance cost.

Principles:

- **Stability before intelligence**  
  A stable system is always preferred over a smarter one.

- **Performance is a shared resource**  
  Any increase in bot cost affects all players and all bots.

- **Simple logic scales better than smart logic**  
Predictable behavior under load is more valuable than perfect decisions.

- **Complexity must justify itself**  
  If a feature cannot clearly explain its cost, it should not exist.

- **Defaults must be cheap**  
  Expensive behavior must always be optional and clearly communicated.

- **Bots should look reasonable, not perfect**  
  The goal is believable behavior, not human simulation.

Before submitting, confirm that this change aligns with those
principles.

---

## Feature Evaluation

Please answer the following:

- Describe the **minimum logic** required to achieve the intended
behavior?
- Describe the **cheapest implementation** that produces an acceptable
result?
- Describe the **runtime cost** when this logic executes across many
bots?

_I have attempted to order checks while taking into account cost and
likelihood and have opted to find lower-cost methods where possible. I
have also not gone as in depth as I have with other strategies,
partially because it is not necessary to complete encounters but also to
try to limit the performance impact. From my observation, including with
pmon, none of the methods should be overly taxing._

---

## How to Test the Changes

- Step-by-step instructions to test the change
- Any required setup (e.g. multiple players, bots, specific
configuration)
- Expected behavior and how to verify it

_Run Zul'Aman. See next post for strategies to test._

## Complexity & Impact

Does this change add new decision branches?
- - [ ] No
- - [x] Yes (**explain below**)

_Only in the context of raid strategies, with new methods to consider
and new multipliers to evaluate when bots perform actions with the
instance strategy active._

Does this change increase per-bot or per-tick processing?
- - [ ] No
- - [x] Yes (**describe and justify impact**)

_The impact is only with the "zulaman" strategy active, which will be
applied only in the instance. There is currently a PR open to also
remove instance strategies when leaving the map to get rid of the
residual performance impact._

Could this logic scale poorly under load?
- - [ ] No
- - [x] Yes (**explain why**)

_Technically yes, but I think it is unlikely to have an appreciable
difference unless there are many groups running the instance at the same
time on a large server._

## Defaults & Configuration

Does this change modify default bot behavior?
- - [ ] No
- - [x] Yes (**explain why**)

_Only in the instance. It is a necessary trade-off to consider with raid
strategies that I always keep in mind (degree of automation vs. player
choice)._

If this introduces more advanced or AI-heavy logic:
- - [x] Lightweight mode remains the default
- - [ ] More complex behavior is optional and thereby configurable

_Not exactly sure how to address this question in the context of this
PR, but there aren't any techniques or methods for this strategy that I
have not tried before (or something very similar)._

## AI Assistance

Was AI assistance (e.g. ChatGPT or similar tools) used while working on
this change?
- - [ ] No
- - [x] Yes (**explain below**)

If yes, please specify:

- AI tool or model used (e.g. ChatGPT, GPT-4, Claude, etc.)
- Purpose of usage (e.g. brainstorming, refactoring, documentation, code
generation)
- Which parts of the change were influenced or generated
- Whether the result was manually reviewed and adapted

_Gemini and GPT for some questions about the codebase and C++ and
assistance with drafting a few things like containers that I find more
tedious to do myself._

AI assistance is allowed, but all submitted code must be fully
understood, reviewed, and owned by the contributor.
Any AI-influenced changes must be verified against existing CORE and PB
logic. We expect contributors to be honest
about what they do and do not understand.

---

## Final Checklist

- - [x] Stability is not compromised
- - [x] Performance impact is understood, tested, and acceptable
- - [x] Added logic complexity is justified and explained
- - [x] Documentation updated if needed

---

## Notes for Reviewers

Anything that significantly improves realism at the cost of stability or
performance should be carefully discussed
before merging.

---------

Co-authored-by: Keleborn <22352763+Celandriel@users.noreply.github.com>
Co-authored-by: bash <hermensb@gmail.com>
Co-authored-by: Revision <tkn963@gmail.com>
Co-authored-by: kadeshar <kadeshar@gmail.com>
 2026-03-27 10:38:12 -07:00
NoxMax
c7ac849fbe
Fix: Logout refactor and RNDbot logout error handling (#2131) 
# Pull Request

* Improper crash fix by 297f11d3e59f52a29f68188245e6b786c9fa838e. That
fix worked not because setting `logout = true` stops the server from
crashing, but because it stopped the following `if (!logout)` block from
executing at all. In that block `delete target;` was the actual cause of
the crashing and this was recreated in testing.
`botWorldSessionPtr->LogoutPlayer(true);` already deleted target
internally, then comes `delete target;` to delete already freed memory
and the whole thing crashes.

* Players had the ability to logout anyone's alt/addClass bots. Now
there's a check to make sure command is from master.

* When commanded to logout, RNDbots in player's party used to reply with
"I'm logging out!", but they don't, because they shouldn't, because they
are not alt/adClass bots. Now they say "You can't command me to logout!"

* Added early exits for the "logout cancel" block, then I remembered
bots were made to always instantly logout because of past issues with
timed logout. Need to review whether or not we should re-implement timed
logout, or if it's not worth it and its dead code removed with instant
logout remaining the only option.

---

## Design Philosophy

We prioritize **stability, performance, and predictability** over
behavioral realism.
Complex player-mimicking logic is intentionally limited due to its
negative impact on scalability, maintainability, and
long-term robustness.

Excessive processing overhead can lead to server hiccups, increased CPU
usage, and degraded performance for all
participants. Because every action and
decision tree is executed **per bot and per trigger**, even small
increases in logic complexity can scale poorly and
negatively affect both players and
world (random) bots. Bots are not expected to behave perfectly, and
perfect simulation of human decision-making is not a
project goal. Increased behavioral
realism often introduces disproportionate cost, reduced predictability,
and significantly higher maintenance overhead.

Every additional branch of logic increases long-term responsibility. All
decision paths must be tested, validated, and
maintained continuously as the system evolves.
If advanced or AI-intensive behavior is introduced, the **default
configuration must remain the lightweight decision
model**. More complex behavior should only be
available as an **explicit opt-in option**, clearly documented as having
a measurable performance cost.

Principles:

- **Stability before intelligence**  
  A stable system is always preferred over a smarter one.

- **Performance is a shared resource**  
  Any increase in bot cost affects all players and all bots.

- **Simple logic scales better than smart logic**  
Predictable behavior under load is more valuable than perfect decisions.

- **Complexity must justify itself**  
  If a feature cannot clearly explain its cost, it should not exist.

- **Defaults must be cheap**  
  Expensive behavior must always be optional and clearly communicated.

- **Bots should look reasonable, not perfect**  
  The goal is believable behavior, not human simulation.

Before submitting, confirm that this change aligns with those
principles.

---

## Feature Evaluation

Please answer the following:

- Describe the **minimum logic** required to achieve the intended
behavior?
- Describe the **cheapest implementation** that produces an acceptable
result?
- Describe the **runtime cost** when this logic executes across many
bots?

This PR removes more code than it adds, and makes sure that exits happen
as early as possible. It has no effect on processing power and makes the
code slightly more maintainable.

---

## How to Test the Changes

1. Whisper `logout` to any bot whose master is not you. The bot can be
RND/alt/addClass. The bot may have someone else as a master or may not
have a master at all. The bot may be part of a party or not. Regardless,
you are not its master. It should tell you "You are not my master!". Two
players or two instances of the client from two different accounts are
needed for this test, in order for Player A to command a bot to logout,
when the bot's master is Player B.

2. Invite an RND bot to your party. As along as it's in your party, you
are it's master, but RND bots cannot be logged out through chat
commands. If you whisper `logout` to it, it should say "You can't
command me to logout!", and not logout.

3. Whisper to an alt/addClass bot `logout`. The bot can be in your party
or could've been uninvited. All that matters is that you are its master.
It should reply "I'm logging out!"

## Complexity & Impact

Does this change add new decision branches?
- - [x] No
- - [ ] Yes (**explain below**)

Does this change increase per-bot or per-tick processing?
- - [x] No
- - [ ] Yes (**describe and justify impact**)

Could this logic scale poorly under load?
- - [x] No
- - [ ] Yes (**explain why**)
---

## Defaults & Configuration

Does this change modify default bot behavior?
- - [ ] No
- - [x] Yes (**explain why**)
In that it fixes wrong behavior.

If this introduces more advanced or AI-heavy logic:
- - [x] Lightweight mode remains the default
- - [x] More complex behavior is optional and thereby configurable
---

## AI Assistance

Was AI assistance (e.g. ChatGPT or similar tools) used while working on
this change?
- - [ ] No
- - [x] Yes (**explain below**)
Used Claude for code review, and translations.

If yes, please specify:

- AI tool or model used (e.g. ChatGPT, GPT-4, Claude, etc.)
- Purpose of usage (e.g. brainstorming, refactoring, documentation, code
generation)
- Which parts of the change were influenced or generated
- Whether the result was manually reviewed and adapted

AI assistance is allowed, but all submitted code must be fully
understood, reviewed, and owned by the contributor.
Any AI-influenced changes must be verified against existing CORE and PB
logic. We expect contributors to be honest
about what they do and do not understand.

---

## Lines to Translate

These are keys and defaults of lines that were added/edited, and to be
translated at a later SQL update.

| Key | Default line |
| --- | --- |
| bot_not_your_master | You are not my master! |
| bot_rndbot_no_logout | You can't command me to logout! |
---

## Final Checklist

- - [x] Stability is not compromised
- - [x] Performance impact is understood, tested, and acceptable
- - [x] Added logic complexity is justified and explained
- - [x] Documentation updated if needed

---

## Notes for Reviewers

Anything that significantly improves realism at the cost of stability or
performance should be carefully discussed
before merging.
 2026-03-27 10:38:02 -07:00
kadeshar
d0d1171e06
Fixed typo (#2230) 
<!--
Thank you for contributing to mod-playerbots, please make sure that
you...
1. Submit your PR to the test-staging branch, not master.
2. Read the guidelines below before submitting.
3. Don't delete parts of this template.

DESIGN PHILOSOPHY: We prioritize STABILITY, PERFORMANCE, AND
PREDICTABILITY over behavioral realism.

Every action and decision executes PER BOT AND PER TRIGGER. Small
increases in logic complexity scale
poorly across thousands of bots and negatively affect all. We prioritize
a stable system over a smarter
one. Bots don't need to behave perfectly; believable behavior is the
goal, not human simulation.
Default behavior must be cheap in processing; expensive behavior must be
opt-in.

Before submitting, make sure your changes aligns with these principles.
-->

## Pull Request Description
<!-- Describe what this change does and why it is needed -->
Fixed typo

## How to Test the Changes
<!--
- Step-by-step instructions to test the change.
- Any required setup (e.g. multiple players, number of bots, specific
configuration).
- Expected behavior and how to verify it.
-->
- compile test-staging with 20260320-ac-merge


## Impact Assessment
<!-- As a generic test, before and after measure of pmon (playerbot pmon
tick) can help you here. -->
- Does this change increase per-bot/per-tick processing or risk scaling
poorly with thousands of bots?
    - - [x] No, not at all
    - - [ ] Minimal impact (**explain below**)
    - - [ ] Moderate impact (**explain below**)



- Does this change modify default bot behavior?
    - - [x] No
    - - [ ] Yes (**explain why**)



- Does this change add new decision branches or increase maintenance
complexity?
    - - [x] No
    - - [ ] Yes (**explain below**)



## Messages to Translate
<!--
Bot messages have to be translatable, but you don't need to do the
translations here. You only need to make sure
the message is in a translatable format, and list in the table the
message_key and the default English message.
Search for GetBotTextOrDefault in the codebase for examples.
-->
Does this change add bot messages to translate?
    - - [x] No
    - - [ ] Yes (**list messages in the table**)

| Message key  | Default message |
| --------------- | ------------------ |
|			 |			      |
|			 |			      |

## AI Assistance
<!--
AI assistance is allowed, but all submitted code must be fully
understood, reviewed, and owned by the contributor.
We expect contributors to be honest about what they do and do not
understand.
-->
Was AI assistance used while working on this change?
    - - [x] No
    - - [ ] Yes (**explain below**)
<!--
If yes, please specify:
- Purpose of usage (e.g. brainstorming, refactoring, documentation, code
generation).
- Which parts of the change were influenced or generated, and whether it
was thoroughly reviewed.
-->



## Final Checklist

- - [x] Stability is not compromised.
- - [x] Performance impact is understood, tested, and acceptable.
- - [x] Added logic complexity is justified and explained.
- - [x] Documentation updated if needed (Conf comments, WiKi commands).

## Notes for Reviewers
<!-- Anything else that's helpful to review or test your pull request.
-->
 2026-03-22 15:22:03 +01:00
Keleborn
9f875a7c81
CoreUpdate - ThreatMgr (#2228) 
<!--
Thank you for contributing to mod-playerbots, please make sure that
you...
1. Submit your PR to the test-staging branch, not master.
2. Read the guidelines below before submitting.
3. Don't delete parts of this template.

DESIGN PHILOSOPHY: We prioritize STABILITY, PERFORMANCE, AND
PREDICTABILITY over behavioral realism.

Every action and decision executes PER BOT AND PER TRIGGER. Small
increases in logic complexity scale
poorly across thousands of bots and negatively affect all. We prioritize
a stable system over a smarter
one. Bots don't need to behave perfectly; believable behavior is the
goal, not human simulation.
Default behavior must be cheap in processing; expensive behavior must be
opt-in.

Before submitting, make sure your changes aligns with these principles.
-->

## Pull Request Description
<!-- Describe what this change does and why it is needed -->
Modification to threat system required for current core update PR. 



## Feature Evaluation
<!--
If your PR is very minimal (comment typo, wrong ID reference, etc), and
it is very obvious it will not have
any impact on performance, you may skip these question. If necessary, a
maintainer may ask you for them later.
-->

<!-- Please answer the following: -->
- Describe the **minimum logic** required to achieve the intended
behavior.
- Describe the **processing cost** when this logic executes across many
bots.



## How to Test the Changes
<!--
- Step-by-step instructions to test the change.
- Any required setup (e.g. multiple players, number of bots, specific
configuration).
- Expected behavior and how to verify it.
-->



## Impact Assessment
<!-- As a generic test, before and after measure of pmon (playerbot pmon
tick) can help you here. -->
- Does this change increase per-bot/per-tick processing or risk scaling
poorly with thousands of bots?
    - - [x] No, not at all
    - - [ ] Minimal impact (**explain below**)
    - - [ ] Moderate impact (**explain below**)



- Does this change modify default bot behavior?
    - - [x] No
    - - [ ] Yes (**explain why**)



- Does this change add new decision branches or increase maintenance
complexity?
    - - [x] No
    - - [ ] Yes (**explain below**)



## Messages to Translate
<!--
Bot messages have to be translatable, but you don't need to do the
translations here. You only need to make sure
the message is in a translatable format, and list in the table the
message_key and the default English message.
Search for GetBotTextOrDefault in the codebase for examples.
-->
Does this change add bot messages to translate?
    - - [x] No
    - - [ ] Yes (**list messages in the table**)

| Message key  | Default message |
| --------------- | ------------------ |
|			 |			      |
|			 |			      |

## AI Assistance
<!--
AI assistance is allowed, but all submitted code must be fully
understood, reviewed, and owned by the contributor.
We expect contributors to be honest about what they do and do not
understand.
-->
Was AI assistance used while working on this change?
    - - [ ] No
    - - [x] Yes (**explain below**)
<!--
If yes, please specify:
- Purpose of usage (e.g. brainstorming, refactoring, documentation, code
generation).
- Which parts of the change were influenced or generated, and whether it
was thoroughly reviewed.
-->
Claude. Module search for changes made. It also identified a section of
dead code in EnemyPlayerValue due to incorrect ref that was fixed.


## Final Checklist

- - [X] Stability is not compromised.
- - [X] Performance impact is understood, tested, and acceptable.
- - [X] Added logic complexity is justified and explained.
- - [X] Documentation updated if needed (Conf comments, WiKi commands).

## Notes for Reviewers
<!-- Anything else that's helpful to review or test your pull request.
-->
 2026-03-21 23:41:07 +01:00
dillyns
32af1b95de
Paladin Seal of wisdom fallback fix for Ret/Prot Paladins (#2147) 
# Pull Request

This PR removes the fallback for Seal of Wisdom action from generic
Paladin strategy and moves it to Holy Paladin only. This is necessary
because a paladin who does not have Seal of Wisdom yet who goes low mana
and triggers the seal of wisdom action will end up falling back to Seal
of Righteousness, even though a better seal may be available, such as
Seal of Command.
The fallback is added to Holy Paladin so that low level holy paladins
still use Righteousness until they get Wisdom

---

## Feature Evaluation

Please answer the following:

- Describe the **minimum logic** required to achieve the intended
behavior?
Ret paladin without Seal of Wisdom shouldn't change seals on low mana.
- Describe the **cheapest implementation** that produces an acceptable
result?
Cheapest implementation is to remove seal of wisdom fallback for
non-holy paladins.
- Describe the **runtime cost** when this logic executes across many
bots?
No difference in cost compared to existing logic.
---

## How to Test the Changes

Use a ret paladin bot who has Seal of Command but who does not have Seal
of Wisdom. A paladin under level 38 will do.
Order them to attack something, like a test dummy, until they eventually
run low on mana.

Before this change: The paladin will switch to Seal of Righteousness
when they get low mana.
After this change: The paladin leaves Seal of Command on when they get
low mana.

## Complexity & Impact

Does this change add new decision branches?
- - [x] No
- - [ ] Yes (**explain below**)

Does this change increase per-bot or per-tick processing?
- - [x] No
- - [ ] Yes (**describe and justify impact**)

Could this logic scale poorly under load?
- - [x] No
- - [ ] Yes (**explain why**)
---

## Defaults & Configuration

Does this change modify default bot behavior?
- - [x] No
- - [ ] Yes (**explain why**)

If this introduces more advanced or AI-heavy logic:
- - [x] Lightweight mode remains the default
- - [ ] More complex behavior is optional and thereby configurable
---

## AI Assistance

Was AI assistance (e.g. ChatGPT or similar tools) used while working on
this change?
- - [x] No
- - [ ] Yes (**explain below**)

If yes, please specify:

- AI tool or model used (e.g. ChatGPT, GPT-4, Claude, etc.)
- Purpose of usage (e.g. brainstorming, refactoring, documentation, code
generation)
- Which parts of the change were influenced or generated
- Whether the result was manually reviewed and adapted

AI assistance is allowed, but all submitted code must be fully
understood, reviewed, and owned by the contributor.
Any AI-influenced changes must be verified against existing CORE and PB
logic. We expect contributors to be honest
about what they do and do not understand.

---

## Final Checklist

- - [x] Stability is not compromised
- - [x] Performance impact is understood, tested, and acceptable
- - [x] Added logic complexity is justified and explained
- - [x] Documentation updated if needed

---

## Notes for Reviewers

Anything that significantly improves realism at the cost of stability or
performance should be carefully discussed
before merging.
 2026-03-21 15:19:22 -07:00
Keleborn
2b273f6a2c
Fix merge error in test staging (#2226) 
<!--
Thank you for contributing to mod-playerbots, please make sure that
you...
1. Submit your PR to the test-staging branch, not master.
2. Read the guidelines below before submitting.
3. Don't delete parts of this template.

DESIGN PHILOSOPHY: We prioritize STABILITY, PERFORMANCE, AND
PREDICTABILITY over behavioral realism.

Every action and decision executes PER BOT AND PER TRIGGER. Small
increases in logic complexity scale
poorly across thousands of bots and negatively affect all. We prioritize
a stable system over a smarter
one. Bots don't need to behave perfectly; believable behavior is the
goal, not human simulation.
Default behavior must be cheap in processing; expensive behavior must be
opt-in.

Before submitting, make sure your changes aligns with these principles.
-->

Fix merge error we missed due to core sync issues. 

## Pull Request Description
<!-- Describe what this change does and why it is needed -->



## Feature Evaluation
<!--
If your PR is very minimal (comment typo, wrong ID reference, etc), and
it is very obvious it will not have
any impact on performance, you may skip these question. If necessary, a
maintainer may ask you for them later.
-->

<!-- Please answer the following: -->
- Describe the **minimum logic** required to achieve the intended
behavior.
- Describe the **processing cost** when this logic executes across many
bots.



## How to Test the Changes
<!--
- Step-by-step instructions to test the change.
- Any required setup (e.g. multiple players, number of bots, specific
configuration).
- Expected behavior and how to verify it.
-->



## Impact Assessment
<!-- As a generic test, before and after measure of pmon (playerbot pmon
tick) can help you here. -->
- Does this change increase per-bot/per-tick processing or risk scaling
poorly with thousands of bots?
    - [x] No, not at all
    - [ ] Minimal impact (**explain below**)
    - [ ] Moderate impact (**explain below**)



- Does this change modify default bot behavior?
    - [x] No
    - [ ] Yes (**explain why**)



- Does this change add new decision branches or increase maintenance
complexity?
    - [x] No
    - [ ] Yes (**explain below**)



## Messages to Translate
<!--
Bot messages have to be translatable, but you don't need to do the
translations here. You only need to make sure
the message is in a translatable format, and list in the table the
message_key and the default English message.
Search for GetBotTextOrDefault in the codebase for examples.
-->
Does this change add bot messages to translate?
- [x] No
- [ ] Yes (**list messages in the table**)

| Message key  | Default message |
| --------------- | ------------------ |
|			 |			      |
|			 |			      |

## AI Assistance
<!--
AI assistance is allowed, but all submitted code must be fully
understood, reviewed, and owned by the contributor.
We expect contributors to be honest about what they do and do not
understand.
-->
Was AI assistance used while working on this change?
- [x] No
- [ ] Yes (**explain below**)
<!--
If yes, please specify:
- Purpose of usage (e.g. brainstorming, refactoring, documentation, code
generation).
- Which parts of the change were influenced or generated, and whether it
was thoroughly reviewed.
-->



## Final Checklist

- [x] Stability is not compromised.
- [x] Performance impact is understood, tested, and acceptable.
- [x] Added logic complexity is justified and explained.
- [x] Documentation updated if needed (Conf comments, WiKi commands).

## Notes for Reviewers
<!-- Anything else that's helpful to review or test your pull request.
-->
 2026-03-21 08:23:07 +01:00
kadeshar
98395a1090
Added cancellation druid form actions (#2194) 
# Pull Request

Added new (for now manual) actions to cancel druid forms. 
Resolve: https://github.com/mod-playerbots/mod-playerbots/issues/1788

---

## Feature Evaluation

Please answer the following:

- order bot enter some form like `do travel form`
- order bot cancel form like `do cancel travel form`

---

## How to Test the Changes

- order bot enter some form like `do travel form`
- order bot cancel form like `do cancel travel form`

## Complexity & Impact

Does this change add new decision branches?
- - [x] No
- - [ ] Yes (**explain below**)

Does this change increase per-bot or per-tick processing?
- - [x] No
- - [ ] Yes (**describe and justify impact**)

Could this logic scale poorly under load?
- - [x] No
- - [ ] Yes (**explain why**)
---

## Defaults & Configuration

Does this change modify default bot behavior?
- - [x] No
- - [ ] Yes (**explain why**)
- 
---

## AI Assistance

Was AI assistance (e.g. ChatGPT or similar tools) used while working on
this change?
- - [x] No
- - [ ] Yes (**explain below**)

---

## Final Checklist

- - [x] Stability is not compromised
- - [x] Performance impact is understood, tested, and acceptable
- - [x] Added logic complexity is justified and explained
- - [x] Documentation updated if needed

---
 2026-03-20 20:42:22 +01:00
oskov
f160420d70
Fix/talent tree ordered map (#2222) 
Fixes #2050

InitTalents builds a map of talentRow → [TalentEntry*] and iterates it
to teach talents row by row. WoW's talent system requires each row to be
filled before unlocking the next, so iteration must happen in ascending
row order. Commit
b474dc4 ("Performance optim") changed the container from std::map to
std::unordered_map, which has no guaranteed key ordering. As a result,
bots would frequently attempt to learn talents in a row whose
prerequisites hadn't been met
  yet, silently skipping them. I belive it's the reason of #2050 issue.

The fix is a one-character type change: restoring std::map<uint32, ...>,
which guarantees ascending key (row) order.

  How to Test the Changes

   1. Make fresh installation
   2. Create new character
   3. Observe talents tree of fresh rnd bots
  

  Was AI assistance used while working on this change?

- [X] Yes — GitHub Copilot CLI was used to identify the root cause
(unordered_map introduced in b474dc4 breaking talent row ordering),
stage the one-line fix, and draft this PR description. The code change
was reviewed and fully
  understood before submission.

Root cause commit: b474dc44bb6323430a84fc17c1ec046f9919a101
("Performance optim") — changed std::map to std::unordered_map in
InitTalents, breaking the row-ordering guarantee that WoW's talent
prerequisite system depends on.

Co-authored-by: Copilot <223556219+Copilot@users.noreply.github.com>
 2026-03-20 20:42:07 +01:00
Crow
d5762b7e0f
Remove Vertical Speed Limit from Knockback Packet (#2223) 
<!--
Thank you for contributing to mod-playerbots, please make sure that
you...
1. Submit your PR to the test-staging branch, not master.
2. Read the guidelines below before submitting.
3. Don't delete parts of this template.

DESIGN PHILOSOPHY: We prioritize STABILITY, PERFORMANCE, AND
PREDICTABILITY over behavioral realism.

Every action and decision executes PER BOT AND PER TRIGGER. Small
increases in logic complexity scale
poorly across thousands of bots and negatively affect all. We prioritize
a stable system over a smarter
one. Bots don't need to behave perfectly; believable behavior is the
goal, not human simulation.
Default behavior must be cheap in processing; expensive behavior must be
opt-in.

Before submitting, make sure your changes aligns with these principles.
-->

## Pull Request Description
This PR removes the break from SMSG_MOVE_KNOCK_BACK for knockbacks with
vertical speed of >35.0f. This break is the reason for many vertical
knockbacks having no effect on bots, including Shade of Aran's Flame
Wreath, High Astromancer Solarian's Wrath of the Astromancer, and
Archimonde's Air Burst. There is a comment that indicates that the limit
was originally added due to bots getting stuck from high-speed vertical
knockbacks. I have not observed this at all and have been playing with
this break removed for several months.

## Feature Evaluation
<!--
If your PR is very minimal (comment typo, wrong ID reference, etc), and
it is very obvious it will not have
any impact on performance, you may skip these question. If necessary, a
maintainer may ask you for them later.
-->

<!-- Please answer the following: -->
- Describe the **minimum logic** required to achieve the intended
behavior.
- Describe the **processing cost** when this logic executes across many
bots.

I honestly cannot say if there is impact on processing cost because I
have no understanding of packets. I would be surprised if there are any
performance issues since knockback packets are ordinarily getting sent
all the time, it's just a small number of moves that get skipped due to
this break.

## How to Test the Changes
<!--
- Step-by-step instructions to test the change.
- Any required setup (e.g. multiple players, number of bots, specific
configuration).
- Expected behavior and how to verify it.
-->

1. .go creature name High Astromancer Solarian
2. Start combat and wait until a bot gets hit with Wrath of the
Astromancer
3. Wait for the aura to expire and watch the bot fly to Mars and fall
back down

## Impact Assessment
<!-- As a generic test, before and after measure of pmon (playerbot pmon
tick) can help you here. -->
- Does this change increase per-bot/per-tick processing or risk scaling
poorly with thousands of bots?
    - [ ] No, not at all
    - [x] Minimal impact (**explain below**)
    - [ ] Moderate impact (**explain below**)

I do not know for sure, but as noted above, I would be surprised if
there was any notable performance impact.

- Does this change modify default bot behavior?
    - [x] No
    - [ ] Yes (**explain why**)



- Does this change add new decision branches or increase maintenance
complexity?
    - [x] No
    - [ ] Yes (**explain below**)



## Messages to Translate
<!--
Bot messages have to be translatable, but you don't need to do the
translations here. You only need to make sure
the message is in a translatable format, and list in the table the
message_key and the default English message.
Search for GetBotTextOrDefault in the codebase for examples.
-->
Does this change add bot messages to translate?
- [x] No
- [ ] Yes (**list messages in the table**)

| Message key  | Default message |
| --------------- | ------------------ |
|			 |			      |
|			 |			      |

## AI Assistance
<!--
AI assistance is allowed, but all submitted code must be fully
understood, reviewed, and owned by the contributor.
We expect contributors to be honest about what they do and do not
understand.
-->
Was AI assistance used while working on this change?
- [x] No
- [ ] Yes (**explain below**)
<!--
If yes, please specify:
- Purpose of usage (e.g. brainstorming, refactoring, documentation, code
generation).
- Which parts of the change were influenced or generated, and whether it
was thoroughly reviewed.
-->



## Final Checklist

- [x] Stability is not compromised.
- [ ] Performance impact is understood, tested, and acceptable. <- I
can't say for sure, but I've not had any issues. I would appreciate
getting thoughts from somebody knowledgeable about packet use, however.
- [x] Added logic complexity is justified and explained.
- [x] Documentation updated if needed (Conf comments, WiKi commands).

## Notes for Reviewers
<!-- Anything else that's helpful to review or test your pull request.
-->

---------

Co-authored-by: Keleborn <22352763+Celandriel@users.noreply.github.com>
Co-authored-by: bash <hermensb@gmail.com>
Co-authored-by: Revision <tkn963@gmail.com>
Co-authored-by: kadeshar <kadeshar@gmail.com>
 2026-03-20 20:41:47 +01:00
kadeshar
c6a07ad012
Every Man for Himself racial support (#2198) 
# Pull Request

Added Every Man for Himself racial support
Partially resolves:
https://github.com/mod-playerbots/mod-playerbots/issues/2002

---

## How to Test the Changes

- when human bot is in combat apply aura via command `.aura 20066`
- bot should use "Every Man for Himself" to remove aura

## Complexity & Impact

Does this change add new decision branches?
- - [x] No
- - [ ] Yes (**explain below**)

Does this change increase per-bot or per-tick processing?
- - [x] No
- - [ ] Yes (**describe and justify impact**)

Could this logic scale poorly under load?
- - [x] No
- - [ ] Yes (**explain why**)
---

## Defaults & Configuration

Does this change modify default bot behavior?
- - [ ] No
- - [x] Yes (**explain why**)

Human bots now using "Every Man for Himself" by default where in combat

If this introduces more advanced or AI-heavy logic:
- - [x] Lightweight mode remains the default
- - [x] More complex behavior is optional and thereby configurable
---

## AI Assistance

Was AI assistance (e.g. ChatGPT or similar tools) used while working on
this change?
- - [ ] No
- - [x] Yes (**explain below**)

Copilot CLI to review changes

---

## Final Checklist

- - [x] Stability is not compromised
- - [x] Performance impact is understood, tested, and acceptable
- - [x] Added logic complexity is justified and explained
- - [x] Documentation updated if needed

---

## Notes for Reviewers

Test result:
<img width="358" height="97" alt="obraz"
src="https://github.com/user-attachments/assets/66044a93-d73b-4706-ae2f-ea8ae6e25438"
/>
 2026-03-20 20:41:22 +01:00
Crow
cba6af27ad
Fix Assassination Rogue Finishers and add Cold Blood (#2215) 
<!--
Thank you for contributing to mod-playerbots, please make sure that
you...
1. Submit your PR to the test-staging branch, not master.
2. Read the guidelines below before submitting.
3. Don't delete parts of this template.

DESIGN PHILOSOPHY: We prioritize STABILITY, PERFORMANCE, AND
PREDICTABILITY over behavioral realism.

Every action and decision executes PER BOT AND PER TRIGGER. Small
increases in logic complexity scale
poorly across thousands of bots and negatively affect all. We prioritize
a stable system over a smarter
one. Bots don't need to behave perfectly; believable behavior is the
goal, not human simulation.
Default behavior must be cheap in processing; expensive behavior must be
opt-in.

Before submitting, make sure your changes aligns with these principles.
-->

## Pull Request Description
<!-- Describe what this change does and why it is needed -->

**Note for reviewers**: The Rogue files are very confusing, so for
background, there is DpsRogueStrategy, which is for all Rogues and
represented by the “dps” strategy in game, and there is also
AssassinationRogueStrategy, which is for Assassination and Subtlety
specs and represented by the “melee” strategy in game. So Combat has
only the dps strategy, while Assassination and Subtlety have the dps and
melee strategies.
- The main focus of this PR is to fix an issue with Assassination Rogues
that caused them to use Eviscerate instead of Envenom about 1/3 of the
time they should have been using Envenom, which was significantly
reducing their DPS. See the bottom of this post for an explanation for
why this was happening and why the fix works. Well, LMK if you think
it's wrong, but this is how I am understanding things, and my
back-of-the-envelope math (also below) supports it.

- After this PR, Assassination Rogues will use Eviscerate only if they
are unable to use Envenom (don't have the ability learned or no Deadly
Poison on the target) or if they don’t have Rank 3 in Master Poisoner.

- Additionally, Assassination Rogues previously would use
Envenom/Eviscerate at 3 or more combo points. This is suboptimal so I
created a new “combo points 4 available” trigger that will fire at 4 or
5 combo points only. They will still use the finisher at 3 combo points
if the mob is almost dead (via the existing “target with combo points
almost dead” trigger).

- I then added Cold Blood, which Rogues previously would not use at all.
Now there is a ColdBloodAction(), and Cold Blood is used when a Rogue
has at least 4 combo points, right before using Envenom (or Eviscerate).
I implemented it as a standard BuffTrigger so they’ll just use the
ability off cooldown.

- While looking at the combo point triggers, I thought it was confusing
that the “combo points available” trigger actually meant 5 combo points
(presumably because the default parameter for combo points in
ComboPointsAvailableTrigger() is 5). I changed the string to “combo
points 5 available” so it’s less confusing going forward. This
necessitated some changes in the Druid files too.

- Next, I cleaned up DpsRogueStrategy a bit. Not a lot to say, just some
duplicative or useless logic was removed. There shouldn’t be any impact
on gameplay from the changes.

- In the process of making the edits in the Druid files, I noticed that
the trigger for Tiger’s Fury in OffhealDruidCatStrategy was “low
energy,” which does not exist (there is a “light energy available,” but
the EnergyAvailable triggers are for when energy is AT LEAST the
designated level, not AT MOST the designated level). So I replaced the
trigger with the already-existing “tiger’s fury” trigger, which I think
is just a generic BuffTrigger so I don’t actually know why it exists
(i.e., Druid will use the spell off cooldown). But this particular
change is just a quick fix and not intended to be thoughtful (that would
be outside the scope of this PR).


## Feature Evaluation
<!--
If your PR is very minimal (comment typo, wrong ID reference, etc), and
it is very obvious it will not have
any impact on performance, you may skip these question. If necessary, a
maintainer may ask you for them later.
-->

<!-- Please answer the following: -->
- Describe the **minimum logic** required to achieve the intended
behavior.
- Describe the **processing cost** when this logic executes across many
bots.

There should be no relevant impact on performance. This PR adds one new
action triggered by the standard BuffTrigger. Otherwise, these are just
fixes to existing logic.

## How to Test the Changes
<!--
- Step-by-step instructions to test the change.
- Any required setup (e.g. multiple players, number of bots, specific
configuration).
- Expected behavior and how to verify it.
-->

The easiest way to test is to fight a boss that doesn't tend to result
in downtime (since downtime can lead to the loss of deadly poison
stacks, in which case Eviscerate will (and should be) used by
Assassination Rogues). You can use a damage meter such as Skada to track
ability use. You should see:
- Assassination Rogues don't use Eviscerate at all, or very few times.
- Assassination Rogues use Cold Blood.
- Offheal Cat Druids use Tiger's Fury.
- Otherwise, Rogue and Cat Druid behavior should remain the same.


## Impact Assessment
<!-- As a generic test, before and after measure of pmon (playerbot pmon
tick) can help you here. -->
- Does this change increase per-bot/per-tick processing or risk scaling
poorly with thousands of bots?
    - [x] No, not at all
    - [ ] Minimal impact (**explain below**)
    - [ ] Moderate impact (**explain below**)



- Does this change modify default bot behavior?
    - [ ] No
    - [x] Yes (**explain why**)


Default behavior for Assassination Rogues was broken, as explained
above.


- Does this change add new decision branches or increase maintenance
complexity?
    - [x] No
    - [ ] Yes (**explain below**)



## Messages to Translate
<!--
Bot messages have to be translatable, but you don't need to do the
translations here. You only need to make sure
the message is in a translatable format, and list in the table the
message_key and the default English message.
Search for GetBotTextOrDefault in the codebase for examples.
-->
Does this change add bot messages to translate?
- [x] No
- [ ] Yes (**list messages in the table**)

| Message key  | Default message |
| --------------- | ------------------ |
|			 |			      |
|			 |			      |

## AI Assistance
<!--
AI assistance is allowed, but all submitted code must be fully
understood, reviewed, and owned by the contributor.
We expect contributors to be honest about what they do and do not
understand.
-->
Was AI assistance used while working on this change?
- [ ] No
- [x] Yes (**explain below**)
<!--
If yes, please specify:
- Purpose of usage (e.g. brainstorming, refactoring, documentation, code
generation).
- Which parts of the change were influenced or generated, and whether it
was thoroughly reviewed.
-->

I had Claude help me diagnose the initial issue and help me understand
the queue system. And I had it implement the changes that were just
busywork (like combo point triggers).


## Final Checklist

- [x] Stability is not compromised.
- [x] Performance impact is understood, tested, and acceptable.
- [x] Added logic complexity is justified and explained.
- [x] Documentation updated if needed (Conf comments, WiKi commands).

## Notes for Reviewers
<!-- Anything else that's helpful to review or test your pull request.
-->

The reason for why Assassination Rogues were using Eviscerate so
frequently is due to the fact that Envenom and Eviscerate were part of
the same TriggerNode. When actions are part of the same TriggerNode,
they're processed together, and the actions are queued by priority. When
the higher-priority action is executed, the lower-priority action is not
cleared--it remains in the queue for expireActionTime from the config,
which is 5 seconds by default. Then, as soon as the lower-priority
action can be executed (without regard for triggers because it is
already triggered, just sitting in the queue), it will execute.

This pattern of code works fine ingame if (1) you are actually trying to
queue actions, like what I did with Cold Blood -> Envenom, (2) there are
other guards like IsUseful() and IsPossible() that keep unwanted actions
from executing, or (3) the trigger is just constantly firing so the
higher-priority action is always evaluated. But TriggerNode isn't really
the right way to implement action priority--that's through ActionNode.
AssassinationRogueStrategy had Envenom and Eviscerate in the same
TriggerNode, and then the corresponding ActionNode had Rupture as a
fallback. Now, I changed it so Eviscerate is instead a fallback in the
Envenom ActionNode (and Rupture is removed entirely because
Assassination Rogues just shouldn't be using it, except maybe on very
high-armor targets that are immune to poison, but that is very niche).

~

I did some back-of-the-envelope math to check this pattern. Say we're in
a situation where Deadly Poison is up so ideally the Rogue should use
Envenom 100% of the time. Through the old system, what would happen when
the trigger fired?
- Rogue uses Envenom since it's the higher-priority action.
- Due to the Ruthlessness talent, Rogue has a 60% chance of having 1
combo point after the finisher, 40% chance of 0 combo points. If it has
1 combo point, it uses Eviscerate immediately.
- If it has 0 combo points, it uses Mutilate. Mutilate grants 2 combo
points, unless it crits, in which case it grants 3 due to Seal Fate. If
Mutilate doesn't crit, the Rogue has 2 combo points, and it uses
Eviscerate. If Mutilate does crit, the Rogue has 3 combo points, and it
uses Envenom.
- So let's assume Mutilate has a 55% crit chance (very reasonable for a
Rogue in entry-level raid gear with raid buffs due to Opportunity giving
+20% crit chance to Mutilate). Mutilate hits twice, and if either hit
crits, Seal Fate Procs. The chance of at least one crit with two hits at
a 55% crit chance is ~80%. That means if Ruthlessness doesn't give a
combo point, there is an 80% chance that Envenom will be used and a 20%
chance that Eviscerate will be used.
- Combine the above, and the result of one trigger firing is you get 1
guaranteed Envenom + 0.6 Eviscerates (Ruthlessness proc path) + 0.32
Envenoms (No Ruthlessness proc but Seal Fate proc path) + 0.08
Eviscerates (No Ruthlessness proc and no Seal Fate proc path) = 1.32
Envenoms to each 0.68 Eviscerates, or a 1.94:1 ratio of Envenoms to
Eviscerates. That is basically identical to what I saw in practice of
roughly a 2:1 ratio of Envenoms to Eviscerates.
- I understand the above is simplistic and it assumes that the Rogue
gets a combo point within 5 seconds following using Envenom (very
likely) and that there are not two opportunities to use Envenom or
Eviscerate in the 5-second queue period after using Envenom (it can
happen but is uncommon). That's all at the margins and isn't going to
impact the math very much.

---------

Co-authored-by: Keleborn <22352763+Celandriel@users.noreply.github.com>
Co-authored-by: bash <hermensb@gmail.com>
Co-authored-by: Revision <tkn963@gmail.com>
Co-authored-by: kadeshar <kadeshar@gmail.com>
 2026-03-20 20:40:59 +01:00
Keleborn
957eca0263
Feat. Enable multi node flying, and refactor into travel manager (#2156) 
# Pull Request

Feature - Enable multi node flying for bots
- Bots currently only do node to node flying. This PR makes it so they
can connect multiple noted.
-- This is enabled by sending a vector containing the node sequence
instead of a single destination node
-- To minimize the run-time cost of searching for available nodes and
connection, a cache of all possible connections is prepared at start up
using a BFS search algorithm.

Refactor 
- Move all world destination logic (cities, banks, inns) to existing
Travel manager
- Eliminate flightmastercache and integrate to new manager
- replace SQLs calls with in-memory data search by core
- Add in new map that stores creature areas by template. 

Clean up
- Move other rpg files to related folder. 
(Next steps) The selection for where bots fly to should be smarter than
it is. Instead of trying to determine where a bot can go, it should
first decide where it should go, and then identify the correct way to
get there.
---

## Feature Evaluation

Please answer the following:

- Describe the **minimum logic** required to achieve the intended
behavior?
- Describe the **cheapest implementation** that produces an acceptable
result?
- Describe the **runtime cost** when this logic executes across many
bots?

---

## How to Test the Changes

- Step-by-step instructions to test the change
- Any required setup (e.g. multiple players, bots, specific
configuration)
- Expected behavior and how to verify it

## Complexity & Impact

Does this change add new decision branches?
- - [x[ No
- - [ ] Yes (**explain below**)

Does this change increase per-bot or per-tick processing?
- - [x] No
- - [ ] Yes (**describe and justify impact**)

Could this logic scale poorly under load?
- - [x] No
- - [ ] Yes (**explain why**)
The call itself is fairly infrequent, and although now there are a
greater number of paths available for the bots, I dont think it would be
significant.

## Defaults & Configuration

Does this change modify default bot behavior?
- - [ ] No
- - [x] Yes (**explain why**)

If this introduces more advanced or AI-heavy logic:
- - [x] Lightweight mode remains the default
- - [ ] More complex behavior is optional and thereby configurable
---

## AI Assistance

Was AI assistance (e.g. ChatGPT or similar tools) used while working on
this change?
- - [ ] No
- - [x] Yes (**explain below**)
Gemini first suggested the use of a BFS algorithm. This was rewritten by
me to actually work as intended. Verification by additional logging not
present in final code.

Claude code converted the SQL filtering to the atrocious if statements
found in PrepareDestinationCache, but after verifying them it works. If
there are better ways to do this Im open to it.

---

## Final Checklist

- - [x] Stability is not compromised
- - [x] Performance impact is understood, tested, and acceptable
- - [x] Added logic complexity is justified and explained
- - [x] Documentation updated if needed

---

## Notes for Reviewers

Anything that significantly improves realism at the cost of stability or
performance should be carefully discussed
before merging.
 2026-03-20 20:39:53 +01:00
NoxMax
5c63aacd60
Drop server initialization time message. Show number of bots set to login. (#2209) 
<!--
Thank you for contributing to mod-playerbots, please make sure that
you...
1. Submit your PR to the test-staging branch, not master.
2. Read the guidelines below before submitting.
3. Don't delete parts of this template.

DESIGN PHILOSOPHY: We prioritize STABILITY, PERFORMANCE, AND
PREDICTABILITY over behavioral realism.

Every action and decision executes PER BOT AND PER TRIGGER. Small
increases in logic complexity scale
poorly across thousands of bots and negatively affect all. We prioritize
a stable system over a smarter
one. Bots don't need to behave perfectly; believable behavior is the
goal, not human simulation.
Default behavior must be cheap in processing; expensive behavior must be
opt-in.

Before submitting, make sure your changes aligns with these principles.
-->

## Pull Request Description
<!-- Describe what this change does and why it is needed -->

The server initialization time on login is neither relevant to the
typical user, nor is it accurate. It simply takes `maxRandomBots`, does
some arbitrary multiplications and divisions on it, and declare that as
the time it takes the server to load. It does not take into account any
other of your server configurations nor your server capabilities.
Here we exchange that message with one more relevant to the user,
telling them the number of logged in bot (or set to be logged in with
DisabledWithoutRealPlayer enabled). But honestly, even removing that
whole snippet is a better idea than keeping the misleading message.

## Feature Evaluation
<!--
If your PR is very minimal (comment typo, wrong ID reference, etc), and
it is very obvious it will not have
any impact on performance, you may skip these question. If necessary, a
maintainer may ask you for them later.
-->

<!-- Please answer the following: -->
- Describe the **minimum logic** required to achieve the intended
behavior.
- Describe the **processing cost** when this logic executes across many
bots.

Alternatively the whole snippet can be removed.

## How to Test the Changes
<!--
- Step-by-step instructions to test the change.
- Any required setup (e.g. multiple players, number of bots, specific
configuration).
- Expected behavior and how to verify it.
-->

Login and see the welcome messages.

## Impact Assessment
<!-- As a generic test, before and after measure of pmon (playerbot pmon
tick) can help you here. -->
- Does this change increase per-bot/per-tick processing or risk scaling
poorly with thousands of bots?
    - [x] No, not at all
    - [ ] Minimal impact (**explain below**)
    - [ ] Moderate impact (**explain below**)



- Does this change modify default bot behavior?
    - [x] No
    - [ ] Yes (**explain why**)



- Does this change add new decision branches or increase maintenance
complexity?
    - [x] No
    - [ ] Yes (**explain below**)



## Messages to Translate
<!--
Bot messages have to be translatable, but you don't need to do the
translations here. You only need to make sure
the message is in a translatable format, and list in the table the
message_key and the default English message.
Search for GetBotTextOrDefault in the codebase for examples.
-->
Does this change add bot messages to translate?
- [x] No
- [ ] Yes (**list messages in the table**)

| Message key  | Default message |
| --------------- | ------------------ |
|			 |			      |
|			 |			      |

## AI Assistance
<!--
AI assistance is allowed, but all submitted code must be fully
understood, reviewed, and owned by the contributor.
We expect contributors to be honest about what they do and do not
understand.
-->
Was AI assistance used while working on this change?
- [x] No
- [ ] Yes (**explain below**)
<!--
If yes, please specify:
- Purpose of usage (e.g. brainstorming, refactoring, documentation, code
generation).
- Which parts of the change were influenced or generated, and whether it
was thoroughly reviewed.
-->



## Final Checklist

- [x] Stability is not compromised.
- [x] Performance impact is understood, tested, and acceptable.
- [x] Added logic complexity is justified and explained.
- [x] Documentation updated if needed (Conf comments, WiKi commands).

## Notes for Reviewers
<!-- Anything else that's helpful to review or test your pull request.
-->

---------

Co-authored-by: Keleborn <22352763+Celandriel@users.noreply.github.com>
Co-authored-by: bash <hermensb@gmail.com>
Co-authored-by: Revision <tkn963@gmail.com>
Co-authored-by: kadeshar <kadeshar@gmail.com>
 2026-03-20 20:39:24 +01:00
Aldori
4877dcc573
fix: ByteBufferException error (opcode: 149) (#2206) 
Fixes #2204 

## Pull Request Description
Fixes an opcode 149 ByteBufferException when Questie-335 (or other
addons that send addon messages) is used in a party with Playerbots.

The issue was caused by addon-language packets reaching parsing logic
they should not have reached. This change adjusts the early return for
`LANG_ADDON` packets before further handling.

## Feature Evaluation
- Describe the **minimum logic** required to achieve the intended
behavior.
- Moved the early return for `LANG_ADDON` packets in the outgoing packet
handler.

- Describe the **processing cost** when this logic executes across many
bots.
  - Negligible. It's a simple conditional check with an early return.

## How to Test the Changes
1. Install and enable Questie-335.
2. Invite at least 1 Playerbot to a party.
3. Accept a quest, abandon a quest, or progress a quest objective such
as kill credit or looting a quest item.
4. Verify the worldserver no longer logs opcode 149 ByteBufferException
errors.

## Impact Assessment
- Does this change increase per-bot/per-tick processing or risk scaling
poorly with thousands of bots?
    - [x] No, not at all
    - [ ] Minimal impact (**explain below**)
    - [ ] Moderate impact (**explain below**)

- Does this change modify default bot behavior?
    - [x] No
    - [ ] Yes (**explain why**)

- Does this change add new decision branches or increase maintenance
complexity?
    - [x] No
    - [ ] Yes (**explain below**)

## Messages to Translate
Does this change add bot messages to translate?
- [x] No
- [ ] Yes (**list messages in the table**)

| Message key  | Default message |
| --------------- | ------------------ |
|			 |			      |
|			 |			      |

## AI Assistance
Was AI assistance used while working on this change?
- [x] No
- [ ] Yes (**explain below**)

## Final Checklist

- [x] Stability is not compromised.
- [x] Performance impact is understood, tested, and acceptable.
- [x] Added logic complexity is justified and explained.
- [ ] Documentation updated if needed (Conf comments, WiKi commands).

## Notes for Reviewers
This is a small fix intended only to prevent addon language packets from
reaching incompatible packet parsing logic.

---------

Co-authored-by: Keleborn <22352763+Celandriel@users.noreply.github.com>
Co-authored-by: bash <hermensb@gmail.com>
Co-authored-by: Revision <tkn963@gmail.com>
Co-authored-by: kadeshar <kadeshar@gmail.com>
 2026-03-20 20:38:57 +01:00
Crow
35a0282ca6
Add Sense Undead for Paladins (#2200) 
# Pull Request

This PR adds the sense undead ability for Paladins, which they will keep
active at all times. This is mildly useful because the associated minor
glyph provides a 1% damage increase against undead while the ability is
active.

Sense undead is also added to InitClassSpells(). I understand that it is
a trainer spell so would normally be covered by InitAvailableSpells(),
but those playing with mod-individual-progression will not receive the
spell through InitAvailableSpells() because it is removed from trainers
by the mod (in TBC, a quest was required to obtain the spell).

Finally, the minor glyph of sense undead is now added to the config as a
default glyph for all PvE specs. It is not added for PvP specs because
Forsaken do not count as undead so the glyph is useless in PvP. I also
made some other tweaks to Paladin default minor glyphs that are not
worth spending any time talking about.

Edit: I also did some minor reformatting of code and replaced some
numbers with existing constants.

---

## Design Philosophy

We prioritize **stability, performance, and predictability** over
behavioral realism.
Complex player-mimicking logic is intentionally limited due to its
negative impact on scalability, maintainability, and
long-term robustness.

Excessive processing overhead can lead to server hiccups, increased CPU
usage, and degraded performance for all
participants. Because every action and
decision tree is executed **per bot and per trigger**, even small
increases in logic complexity can scale poorly and
negatively affect both players and
world (random) bots. Bots are not expected to behave perfectly, and
perfect simulation of human decision-making is not a
project goal. Increased behavioral
realism often introduces disproportionate cost, reduced predictability,
and significantly higher maintenance overhead.

Every additional branch of logic increases long-term responsibility. All
decision paths must be tested, validated, and
maintained continuously as the system evolves.
If advanced or AI-intensive behavior is introduced, the **default
configuration must remain the lightweight decision
model**. More complex behavior should only be
available as an **explicit opt-in option**, clearly documented as having
a measurable performance cost.

Principles:

- **Stability before intelligence**  
  A stable system is always preferred over a smarter one.

- **Performance is a shared resource**  
  Any increase in bot cost affects all players and all bots.

- **Simple logic scales better than smart logic**  
Predictable behavior under load is more valuable than perfect decisions.

- **Complexity must justify itself**  
  If a feature cannot clearly explain its cost, it should not exist.

- **Defaults must be cheap**  
  Expensive behavior must always be optional and clearly communicated.

- **Bots should look reasonable, not perfect**  
  The goal is believable behavior, not human simulation.

Before submitting, confirm that this change aligns with those
principles.

---

## Feature Evaluation

Please answer the following:

- Describe the **minimum logic** required to achieve the intended
behavior?
- Describe the **cheapest implementation** that produces an acceptable
result?
- Describe the **runtime cost** when this logic executes across many
bots?

The implementation just checks if a Paladin has the sense undead aura,
and if not, the Paladin will activate sense undead. It is simple and
cheap.

---

## How to Test the Changes

- Step-by-step instructions to test the change
- Any required setup (e.g. multiple players, bots, specific
configuration)
- Expected behavior and how to verify it

## Complexity & Impact

Does this change add new decision branches?
- - [x] No
- - [ ] Yes (**explain below**)

Does this change increase per-bot or per-tick processing?
- - [ ] No
- - [x] Yes (**describe and justify impact**)

Infinitesimally 

Could this logic scale poorly under load?
- - [x] No
- - [ ] Yes (**explain why**)

## Defaults & Configuration

Does this change modify default bot behavior?
- - [ ] No
- - [x] Yes (**explain why**)

Paladin bots will by default have sense undead enabled. There is no
disadvantage to this.

If this introduces more advanced or AI-heavy logic:
- - [x] Lightweight mode remains the default
- - [ ] More complex behavior is optional and thereby configurable
---

## AI Assistance

Was AI assistance (e.g. ChatGPT or similar tools) used while working on
this change?
- - [x] No
- - [ ] Yes (**explain below**)

If yes, please specify:

- AI tool or model used (e.g. ChatGPT, GPT-4, Claude, etc.)
- Purpose of usage (e.g. brainstorming, refactoring, documentation, code
generation)
- Which parts of the change were influenced or generated
- Whether the result was manually reviewed and adapted

AI assistance is allowed, but all submitted code must be fully
understood, reviewed, and owned by the contributor.
Any AI-influenced changes must be verified against existing CORE and PB
logic. We expect contributors to be honest
about what they do and do not understand.

---

## Final Checklist

- - [x] Stability is not compromised
- - [x] Performance impact is understood, tested, and acceptable
- - [x] Added logic complexity is justified and explained
- - [x] Documentation updated if needed

---

## Notes for Reviewers

Anything that significantly improves realism at the cost of stability or
performance should be carefully discussed
before merging.

---------

Co-authored-by: Keleborn <22352763+Celandriel@users.noreply.github.com>
Co-authored-by: bash <hermensb@gmail.com>
Co-authored-by: Revision <tkn963@gmail.com>
Co-authored-by: kadeshar <kadeshar@gmail.com>
 2026-03-20 20:38:06 +01:00
XYUU
473b2ab5c6
Fix: WLK shaman totem quest vs relic totems: avoid keeping 4 totem items when relic exists #2119 (#2197) 
## Summary
* Detects shaman relics (relic type, totem subclass) in bags/equipment.
* Skips adding the four classic totem items (5175–5178) when a relic
exists.
* Cleans up any existing totem items from bags/equipment/bank when a
relic exists, while keeping Ankh handling intact.
## Test plan
Verified manually (local environment).

---------

Co-authored-by: Keleborn <22352763+Celandriel@users.noreply.github.com>
Co-authored-by: bash <hermensb@gmail.com>
Co-authored-by: Revision <tkn963@gmail.com>
Co-authored-by: kadeshar <kadeshar@gmail.com>
Co-authored-by: github-actions <github-actions@users.noreply.github.com>
 2026-03-20 20:37:44 +01:00
Keleborn
2ce8993986
Correct Loot rolling behavior (#2190) 
# Pull Request

This fixes the loot rolling behavior issue created by #2068 . 
Introduce the ability for enchanter bots to disenchant items they dont
need, and roll need on recipes they also need.
Make it so ITEM_USAGE_AH ensures the item is not BOP.
Try to reduce the call for item_usage in CalculateRollVote by passing
usage if available.

---

## Design Philosophy

We prioritize **stability, performance, and predictability** over
behavioral realism.
Complex player-mimicking logic is intentionally limited due to its
negative impact on scalability, maintainability, and
long-term robustness.

Excessive processing overhead can lead to server hiccups, increased CPU
usage, and degraded performance for all
participants. Because every action and
decision tree is executed **per bot and per trigger**, even small
increases in logic complexity can scale poorly and
negatively affect both players and
world (random) bots. Bots are not expected to behave perfectly, and
perfect simulation of human decision-making is not a
project goal. Increased behavioral
realism often introduces disproportionate cost, reduced predictability,
and significantly higher maintenance overhead.

Every additional branch of logic increases long-term responsibility. All
decision paths must be tested, validated, and
maintained continuously as the system evolves.
If advanced or AI-intensive behavior is introduced, the **default
configuration must remain the lightweight decision
model**. More complex behavior should only be
available as an **explicit opt-in option**, clearly documented as having
a measurable performance cost.

Principles:

- **Stability before intelligence**  
  A stable system is always preferred over a smarter one.

- **Performance is a shared resource**  
  Any increase in bot cost affects all players and all bots.

- **Simple logic scales better than smart logic**  
Predictable behavior under load is more valuable than perfect decisions.

- **Complexity must justify itself**  
  If a feature cannot clearly explain its cost, it should not exist.

- **Defaults must be cheap**  
  Expensive behavior must always be optional and clearly communicated.

- **Bots should look reasonable, not perfect**  
  The goal is believable behavior, not human simulation.

Before submitting, confirm that this change aligns with those
principles.

---

## Feature Evaluation

Please answer the following:

- Describe the **minimum logic** required to achieve the intended
behavior?
-- Add a new check that downgrades greed rolls to desired levels, or
bools for the other two options.
- Describe the **cheapest implementation** that produces an acceptable
result?
-- As implemented.
- Describe the **runtime cost** when this logic executes across many
bots?
-- Same as before. Item usage is the heaviest part, and that hasnt
changed to accommodate this.

---

## How to Test the Changes

- multiple bots in a group with group loot on, do a dungeon or
something. One bot should be an enchanter.

## Complexity & Impact

Does this change add new decision branches?
- - [ ] No
- - [x] Yes (**explain below**)

Does this change increase per-bot or per-tick processing?
- - [X] No
- - [ ] Yes (**describe and justify impact**)

Could this logic scale poorly under load?
- - [X] No
- - [ ] Yes (**explain why**)
---

## Defaults & Configuration

Does this change modify default bot behavior?
- - [ ] No
- - [X] Yes (**explain why**)
- - - Corrects the looting behavior to original design. 

If this introduces more advanced or AI-heavy logic:
- - [ ] Lightweight mode remains the default
- - [X] More complex behavior is optional and thereby configurable
---

## AI Assistance

Was AI assistance (e.g. ChatGPT or similar tools) used while working on
this change?
- - [x] No
- - [ ] Yes (**explain below**)

---

## Final Checklist

- - [x] Stability is not compromised
- - [x] Performance impact is understood, tested, and acceptable
- - [x] Added logic complexity is justified and explained
- - [x] Documentation updated if needed

---

## Notes for Reviewers

Anything that significantly improves realism at the cost of stability or
performance should be carefully discussed
before merging.
 2026-03-20 20:37:02 +01:00
Keleborn
a473432b8f
Core update (#2221) 
<!--
Thank you for contributing to mod-playerbots, please make sure that
you...
1. Submit your PR to the test-staging branch, not master.
2. Read the guidelines below before submitting.
3. Don't delete parts of this template.

DESIGN PHILOSOPHY: We prioritize STABILITY, PERFORMANCE, AND
PREDICTABILITY over behavioral realism.

Every action and decision executes PER BOT AND PER TRIGGER. Small
increases in logic complexity scale
poorly across thousands of bots and negatively affect all. We prioritize
a stable system over a smarter
one. Bots don't need to behave perfectly; believable behavior is the
goal, not human simulation.
Default behavior must be cheap in processing; expensive behavior must be
opt-in.

Before submitting, make sure your changes aligns with these principles.
-->

## Pull Request Description
<!-- Describe what this change does and why it is needed -->

Update based on @TakenBacon feedback. Thank you for the correction to
the PR.


## Feature Evaluation
<!--
If your PR is very minimal (comment typo, wrong ID reference, etc), and
it is very obvious it will not have
any impact on performance, you may skip these question. If necessary, a
maintainer may ask you for them later.
-->

<!-- Please answer the following: -->
- Describe the **minimum logic** required to achieve the intended
behavior.
- Describe the **processing cost** when this logic executes across many
bots.



## How to Test the Changes
<!--
- Step-by-step instructions to test the change.
- Any required setup (e.g. multiple players, number of bots, specific
configuration).
- Expected behavior and how to verify it.
-->



## Impact Assessment
<!-- As a generic test, before and after measure of pmon (playerbot pmon
tick) can help you here. -->
- Does this change increase per-bot/per-tick processing or risk scaling
poorly with thousands of bots?
    - [x] No, not at all
    - [ ] Minimal impact (**explain below**)
    - [ ] Moderate impact (**explain below**)



- Does this change modify default bot behavior?
    - [x] No
    - [ ] Yes (**explain why**)



- Does this change add new decision branches or increase maintenance
complexity?
    - [x] No
    - [ ] Yes (**explain below**)



## Messages to Translate
<!--
Bot messages have to be translatable, but you don't need to do the
translations here. You only need to make sure
the message is in a translatable format, and list in the table the
message_key and the default English message.
Search for GetBotTextOrDefault in the codebase for examples.
-->
Does this change add bot messages to translate?
- [x] No
- [ ] Yes (**list messages in the table**)

| Message key  | Default message |
| --------------- | ------------------ |
|			 |			      |
|			 |			      |

## AI Assistance
<!--
AI assistance is allowed, but all submitted code must be fully
understood, reviewed, and owned by the contributor.
We expect contributors to be honest about what they do and do not
understand.
-->
Was AI assistance used while working on this change?
- [x] No
- [ ] Yes (**explain below**)
<!--
If yes, please specify:
- Purpose of usage (e.g. brainstorming, refactoring, documentation, code
generation).
- Which parts of the change were influenced or generated, and whether it
was thoroughly reviewed.
-->



## Final Checklist

- [x] Stability is not compromised.
- [x] Performance impact is understood, tested, and acceptable.
- [x] Added logic complexity is justified and explained.
- [x] Documentation updated if needed (Conf comments, WiKi commands).

## Notes for Reviewers
<!-- Anything else that's helpful to review or test your pull request.
-->
 2026-03-19 22:04:54 +01:00
Keleborn
d6f396ab50
CoreUpdate (#2207) 
Core PR update.
https://github.com/mod-playerbots/azerothcore-wotlk/pull/178

Core set packet as const, and so had to recast.
 2026-03-14 11:50:20 +01:00
kadeshar
a695ac77fa
Small fixes to naxxramas strategy (#2201) 
# Pull Request

Small fixes to naxxramas strategy

---

## Complexity & Impact

Does this change add new decision branches?
- - [x] No
- - [ ] Yes (**explain below**)

Does this change increase per-bot or per-tick processing?
- - [x] No
- - [ ] Yes (**describe and justify impact**)

Could this logic scale poorly under load?
- - [x] No
- - [ ] Yes (**explain why**)
---

## Defaults & Configuration

Does this change modify default bot behavior?
- - [x] No
- - [ ] Yes (**explain why**)

If this introduces more advanced or AI-heavy logic:
- - [x] Lightweight mode remains the default
- - [ ] More complex behavior is optional and thereby configurable
---

## AI Assistance

Was AI assistance (e.g. ChatGPT or similar tools) used while working on
this change?
- - [x] No
- - [ ] Yes (**explain below**)

If yes, please specify:

Copilot CLI to code review

---

## Final Checklist

- - [x] Stability is not compromised
- - [x] Performance impact is understood, tested, and acceptable
- - [x] Added logic complexity is justified and explained
- - [x] Documentation updated if needed
 2026-03-13 22:22:11 +01:00
Keleborn
5e7613f719
Change reinterpret cast to dynamic cast. (#2182) 
# Pull Request

In a few instances the code used reinterpret cast. This is potentially
risky if the object is incorrect. This is a safer approach.

---

## Design Philosophy

We prioritize **stability, performance, and predictability** over
behavioral realism.
Complex player-mimicking logic is intentionally limited due to its
negative impact on scalability, maintainability, and
long-term robustness.

Excessive processing overhead can lead to server hiccups, increased CPU
usage, and degraded performance for all
participants. Because every action and
decision tree is executed **per bot and per trigger**, even small
increases in logic complexity can scale poorly and
negatively affect both players and
world (random) bots. Bots are not expected to behave perfectly, and
perfect simulation of human decision-making is not a
project goal. Increased behavioral
realism often introduces disproportionate cost, reduced predictability,
and significantly higher maintenance overhead.

Every additional branch of logic increases long-term responsibility. All
decision paths must be tested, validated, and
maintained continuously as the system evolves.
If advanced or AI-intensive behavior is introduced, the **default
configuration must remain the lightweight decision
model**. More complex behavior should only be
available as an **explicit opt-in option**, clearly documented as having
a measurable performance cost.

Principles:

- **Stability before intelligence**  
  A stable system is always preferred over a smarter one.

- **Performance is a shared resource**  
  Any increase in bot cost affects all players and all bots.

- **Simple logic scales better than smart logic**  
Predictable behavior under load is more valuable than perfect decisions.

- **Complexity must justify itself**  
  If a feature cannot clearly explain its cost, it should not exist.

- **Defaults must be cheap**  
  Expensive behavior must always be optional and clearly communicated.

- **Bots should look reasonable, not perfect**  
  The goal is believable behavior, not human simulation.

Before submitting, confirm that this change aligns with those
principles.

---

## Feature Evaluation

Please answer the following:

- Describe the **minimum logic** required to achieve the intended
behavior?
- Describe the **cheapest implementation** that produces an acceptable
result?
- Describe the **runtime cost** when this logic executes across many
bots?

---

## How to Test the Changes

- Step-by-step instructions to test the change
- Any required setup (e.g. multiple players, bots, specific
configuration)
- Expected behavior and how to verify it

## Complexity & Impact

Does this change add new decision branches?
- - [x] No
- - [ ] Yes (**explain below**)

Does this change increase per-bot or per-tick processing?
- - [x] No
- - [ ] Yes (**describe and justify impact**)

Could this logic scale poorly under load?
- - [x] No
- - [ ] Yes (**explain why**)
---

## Defaults & Configuration

Does this change modify default bot behavior?
- - [x] No
- - [ ] Yes (**explain why**)

If this introduces more advanced or AI-heavy logic:
- - [x] Lightweight mode remains the default
- - [ ] More complex behavior is optional and thereby configurable
---

## AI Assistance

Was AI assistance (e.g. ChatGPT or similar tools) used while working on
this change?
- - [x] No
- - [ ] Yes (**explain below**)

If yes, please specify:

- AI tool or model used (e.g. ChatGPT, GPT-4, Claude, etc.)
- Purpose of usage (e.g. brainstorming, refactoring, documentation, code
generation)
- Which parts of the change were influenced or generated
- Whether the result was manually reviewed and adapted

AI assistance is allowed, but all submitted code must be fully
understood, reviewed, and owned by the contributor.
Any AI-influenced changes must be verified against existing CORE and PB
logic. We expect contributors to be honest
about what they do and do not understand.

---

## Final Checklist

- - [x] Stability is not compromised
- - [x] Performance impact is understood, tested, and acceptable
- - [x] Added logic complexity is justified and explained
- - [x] Documentation updated if needed

---

## Notes for Reviewers

Anything that significantly improves realism at the cost of stability or
performance should be carefully discussed
before merging.
 2026-03-13 22:21:55 +01:00
Crow
dca0be2932
Updates to SSC Strategies (#2138) 
# Pull Request

Most of the changes are not functional but are to modify style based on
comments received to the TK PR (e.g., eliminate nesting of if
statements) and leverage general boss helpers. There is some reordering
of returns and other changes to try to consolidate or clean-up the code
(such as removing unnecessary parameters).

The strategies themselves have only minor changes.

- Main tank no longer uses tangential movement for Lurker Spout, unlike
other bots. The MT will just call moves directly to a position behind
Lurker. This is because I found tangential movement was taking too long
for the MT to get in place since it starts right in front of Lurker.
- Vashj MT group Shaman will now use Grounding Totem without actually
switching to the Grounding Totem strategy. I have now eliminated all
strategy swaps, which I dislike because they persist after the
encounter, and it's better not to mess with player strategies since
presumably people are generally using Windfury or Wrath of Air for the
Air Totem.
- I made a ton of changes to Vashj core passing as I noticed the
existing logic is nonfunctional in several ways. It generally works fine
ingame, but the changes should make things much smoother. For example,
the storing of the nearest trigger NPC for generators in the existing
strategy is useless because it relies on insert_or_assign for an
unordered map that will continue to run during the course of the core
passing logic, and a similar issue exists with respect to the map to
store the last time a bot held a core. The result is that there is
slight movement of bots when the core is flying through the air and not
held by any bot because the trigger for core passing does not fire
during that period. In practice, the time is brief enough that the
sequence works OK, but it looks stupid because the bots should not be
moving at all. So that should be fixed.

There is a known issue re: core passing that would take extreme effort
to fix and I am not going to do it because it is a fringe situation.
There are a couple of spots where the Tainted Elemental can rarely spawn
that can result in a straight-line passing sequence to the nearest
generator that is blocked by LoS. Fixing this would be extremely
difficult and niche, so what you will need to do if this happens is to
just command your bots to destroy the core and try again with the next
spawn.

---

## Design Philosophy

We prioritize **stability, performance, and predictability** over
behavioral realism.
Complex player-mimicking logic is intentionally limited due to its
negative impact on scalability, maintainability, and
long-term robustness.

Excessive processing overhead can lead to server hiccups, increased CPU
usage, and degraded performance for all
participants. Because every action and
decision tree is executed **per bot and per trigger**, even small
increases in logic complexity can scale poorly and
negatively affect both players and
world (random) bots. Bots are not expected to behave perfectly, and
perfect simulation of human decision-making is not a
project goal. Increased behavioral
realism often introduces disproportionate cost, reduced predictability,
and significantly higher maintenance overhead.

Every additional branch of logic increases long-term responsibility. All
decision paths must be tested, validated, and
maintained continuously as the system evolves.
If advanced or AI-intensive behavior is introduced, the **default
configuration must remain the lightweight decision
model**. More complex behavior should only be
available as an **explicit opt-in option**, clearly documented as having
a measurable performance cost.

Principles:

- **Stability before intelligence**  
  A stable system is always preferred over a smarter one.

- **Performance is a shared resource**  
  Any increase in bot cost affects all players and all bots.

- **Simple logic scales better than smart logic**  
Predictable behavior under load is more valuable than perfect decisions.

- **Complexity must justify itself**  
  If a feature cannot clearly explain its cost, it should not exist.

- **Defaults must be cheap**  
  Expensive behavior must always be optional and clearly communicated.

- **Bots should look reasonable, not perfect**  
  The goal is believable behavior, not human simulation.

Before submitting, confirm that this change aligns with those
principles.

---

## Feature Evaluation

Please answer the following:

- Describe the **minimum logic** required to achieve the intended
behavior?
- Describe the **cheapest implementation** that produces an acceptable
result?
- Describe the **runtime cost** when this logic executes across many
bots?

I have attempted to streamline methods and even remove some. The
strategy is admittedly somewhat performance heavy due to the need for
function calls such as iterating over inventory items. However, the new
version should be less performance intensive than the merged
strategy--for example, there were places where all members of the raid
would have their inventory checked, but I've now limited the check to
only the 5 core handler bots. I've run the instance with pmon on, and
there are no methods that stand out as particularly resource intensive
when not in a boss encounter, and I view that as the most important
thing (though I make effort to reduce performance impact during
encounters also). Expensive checks that are unavoidable for the strategy
to work such as grid searches are gated behind cheaper checks.

---

## How to Test the Changes

- Step-by-step instructions to test the change
- Any required setup (e.g. multiple players, bots, specific
configuration)
- Expected behavior and how to verify it

Enter SSC with a raid group and run the instance, including all bosses.
Every boss should be killable, and every major mechanic should be
addressed by bots. I will work with Dreathean to get the Wiki up soon so
that should be a reference for testing strategies.

## Complexity & Impact

Does this change add new decision branches?
- - [ ] No
- - [x] Yes (**explain below**)

Only within the context of strategies, which are basically all new
decision branches, and there are some tweaks here to what is currently
merged.

Does this change increase per-bot or per-tick processing?
- - [x] No
- - [ ] Yes (**describe and justify impact**)

Could this logic scale poorly under load?
- - [ ] No
- - [x] Yes (**explain why**)

I'm sure if you have a large server, with multiple raid groups running
the instance at the same time, the performance impact could be
significant. But I have done my best to limit it, and I think some
notable performance impact is unavoidable with the current framework for
raid strategies.

---

## Defaults & Configuration

Does this change modify default bot behavior?
- - [ ] No
- - [x] Yes (**explain why**)

Only for strategies in the instance.

If this introduces more advanced or AI-heavy logic:
- - [ ] Lightweight mode remains the default
- - [x] More complex behavior is optional and thereby configurable

There should be no impact if co +ssc and nc +ssc are not added to bots.
Because raid strategies are currently not removed after leaving an
instance, players should manually remove them (or reset botAI). This is
a general issue that needs to be addressed with the module.

---

## AI Assistance

Was AI assistance (e.g. ChatGPT or similar tools) used while working on
this change?
- - [ ] No
- - [x] Yes (**explain below**)

If yes, please specify:

- AI tool or model used (e.g. ChatGPT, GPT-4, Claude, etc.)
- Purpose of usage (e.g. brainstorming, refactoring, documentation, code
generation)
- Which parts of the change were influenced or generated
- Whether the result was manually reviewed and adapted

AI assistance is allowed, but all submitted code must be fully
understood, reviewed, and owned by the contributor.
Any AI-influenced changes must be verified against existing CORE and PB
logic. We expect contributors to be honest
about what they do and do not understand.

GPT-4 because I don't like to use up my premium requests in CoPilot and
I generally like it better than GPT-5 =P

I use LLMs to draft code snippets but do review everything and have
become less-and-less reliant over time. I don't use agent mode, only
ask. For this PR, I had it do the updated version of
AnyRecentCoreInInventory(), which is more complicated than before and
uses indexing for each bot to consider status of only prior bots in the
passing chain. Everything else either I wrote or could have written but
had the AI help and just edited afterward to save time.

---

## Final Checklist

- - [x] Stability is not compromised
- - [x] Performance impact is understood, tested, and acceptable
- - [x] Added logic complexity is justified and explained
- - [x] Documentation updated if needed

---

## Notes for Reviewers

Anything that significantly improves realism at the cost of stability or
performance should be carefully discussed
before merging.

---------

Co-authored-by: Keleborn <22352763+Celandriel@users.noreply.github.com>
Co-authored-by: bash <hermensb@gmail.com>
Co-authored-by: Revision <tkn963@gmail.com>
Co-authored-by: kadeshar <kadeshar@gmail.com>
 2026-03-13 22:21:37 +01:00
Alex Dcnh
ca19548cc5
Fix transport boarding when master is on a transport (Zep/Boats) (#1830) 
Summary
This PR improves Follow related behaviour when the master is on a
transport (zeppelin/boat). It makes follow actions safer and less
disruptive by:

Detecting when the master is on a transport and handling boarding
correctly
Avoiding teleport-under-floor issues by using a small positional offset
when teleporting the bot near the master
Preventing movement conflicts between MoveSpline/MotionMaster and the
transport driver by forcing a MotionMaster cleanup and MoveIdle after
boarding
Clearing movement flags (forward / walking) after boarding so the bot
does not remain in a walking/march state
Next-check delay after boarding to allow the server to update
transport/position state

Before this change, bots get stuck when attempting to board

Fight the server-side transport movement because local
MoveSpline/MotionMaster was still active
Repeatedly attempt movement on every follow tick while already a
passenger, causing jitter and CPU/noise This PR reduces stuck/jitter
cases, avoids conflicting movement commands, and makes boarding more
robust.

**Key changes**
Check master->GetTransport() and handle three main cases:
If bot already passenger of same transport: stabilize (StopMoving,
Clear(true), MoveIdle, StopMovingOnCurrentPos) and set a longer
next-check delay; return false (no new movement in theory).
If bot passenger of another transport: do nothing (avoid conflicting
behaviour).
If bot not a passenger of master transport: teleport bot near master
(with offsets) and call Transport::AddPassenger(bot, true),
then force:

bot->StopMoving()
bot->GetMotionMaster()->Clear(true)
bot->GetMotionMaster()->MoveIdle()

Remove movement flags MOVEMENTFLAG_FORWARD and MOVEMENTFLAG_WALKING
SetNextCheckDelay to random 1000–2500 ms
Log boarding with bot name, transport GUID and coordinates
Preserve earlier follow logic when master is not on a transport

Tests performed
Manual tests on a local server:

Master on boat/zeppelin -> bot teleports to a safe offset position and
becomes a passenger without getting stuck
Bot already passenger on same transport -> bot no longer issues movement
commands and stabilizes
Bot on a different transport -> no boarding attempt for master's
transport (no interference)
Movement flags cleared after boarding; bot stops local movement and does
not fight server transport movement

Now the bots follow their masters in the zeppelins and boats, although
sometimes they move around a bit inside when the zeppelin starts (they
must have smoked something bad).

---------

Co-authored-by: Keleborn <22352763+Celandriel@users.noreply.github.com>
Co-authored-by: bash <hermensb@gmail.com>
Co-authored-by: bashermens <31279994+hermensbas@users.noreply.github.com>
 2026-03-13 22:21:17 +01:00
kadeshar
2925f248a6
Workaround for crash related with uninitalized script (#2196) 
# Pull Request

Workaround for crashes related with uninitialized new script introduced
in
e74adf550e

---

## Feature Evaluation

---

## How to Test the Changes

- run server with default bots amount without changes and should crashed
- run server with default bots amount with changes and should run
normally

## Complexity & Impact

Does this change add new decision branches?
- - [x] No
- - [ ] Yes (**explain below**)

Does this change increase per-bot or per-tick processing?
- - [x] No
- - [ ] Yes (**describe and justify impact**)

Could this logic scale poorly under load?
- - [x] No
- - [ ] Yes (**explain why**)
---

## Defaults & Configuration

Does this change modify default bot behavior?
- - [x] No
- - [ ] Yes (**explain why**)

If this introduces more advanced or AI-heavy logic:
- - [x] Lightweight mode remains the default
- - [x] More complex behavior is optional and thereby configurable
---

## AI Assistance

Was AI assistance (e.g. ChatGPT or similar tools) used while working on
this change?
- - [ ] No
- - [x] Yes (**explain below**)

Used Copilot Cli to find crash reason.

---

## Final Checklist

- - [x] Stability is not compromised
- - [x] Performance impact is understood, tested, and acceptable
- - [x] Added logic complexity is justified and explained
- - [x] Documentation updated if needed

---
 2026-03-08 08:50:01 +01:00
kadeshar
a8dda550ad
Requirement fix to use bigobj parameter to compile (#2176) 
# Pull Request
Compilation fix which making possible compiling without bigobj parameter

---

## How to Test the Changes

- compile using Visual Studio without bigobj parameter

## Complexity & Impact

Does this change add new decision branches?
- - [x] No
- - [ ] Yes (**explain below**)

Does this change increase per-bot or per-tick processing?
- - [x] No
- - [ ] Yes (**describe and justify impact**)

Could this logic scale poorly under load?
- - [x] No
- - [ ] Yes (**explain why**)
---

## Defaults & Configuration

Does this change modify default bot behavior?
- - [x] No
- - [ ] Yes (**explain why**)

## AI Assistance

Was AI assistance (e.g. ChatGPT or similar tools) used while working on
this change?
- - [ ] No
- - [x] Yes (**explain below**)

Automate file creation

---

## Final Checklist

- - [x] Stability is not compromised
- - [x] Performance impact is understood, tested, and acceptable
- - [x] Added logic complexity is justified and explained
- - [x] Documentation updated if needed
 2026-03-08 08:49:45 +01:00
killerzwelch
660a5c0543
make playerbots compatible with 515aeca (#2181) 
# Pull Request

needed changes for
515aeca570

---

## Design Philosophy

We prioritize **stability, performance, and predictability** over
behavioral realism.
Complex player-mimicking logic is intentionally limited due to its
negative impact on scalability, maintainability, and
long-term robustness.

Excessive processing overhead can lead to server hiccups, increased CPU
usage, and degraded performance for all
participants. Because every action and
decision tree is executed **per bot and per trigger**, even small
increases in logic complexity can scale poorly and
negatively affect both players and
world (random) bots. Bots are not expected to behave perfectly, and
perfect simulation of human decision-making is not a
project goal. Increased behavioral
realism often introduces disproportionate cost, reduced predictability,
and significantly higher maintenance overhead.

Every additional branch of logic increases long-term responsibility. All
decision paths must be tested, validated, and
maintained continuously as the system evolves.
If advanced or AI-intensive behavior is introduced, the **default
configuration must remain the lightweight decision
model**. More complex behavior should only be
available as an **explicit opt-in option**, clearly documented as having
a measurable performance cost.

Principles:

- **Stability before intelligence**  
  A stable system is always preferred over a smarter one.

- **Performance is a shared resource**  
  Any increase in bot cost affects all players and all bots.

- **Simple logic scales better than smart logic**  
Predictable behavior under load is more valuable than perfect decisions.

- **Complexity must justify itself**  
  If a feature cannot clearly explain its cost, it should not exist.

- **Defaults must be cheap**  
  Expensive behavior must always be optional and clearly communicated.

- **Bots should look reasonable, not perfect**  
  The goal is believable behavior, not human simulation.

Before submitting, confirm that this change aligns with those
principles.

---

## Feature Evaluation

Please answer the following:

- Describe the **minimum logic** required to achieve the intended
behavior?
- Describe the **cheapest implementation** that produces an acceptable
result?
- Describe the **runtime cost** when this logic executes across many
bots?

---

## How to Test the Changes

- Step-by-step instructions to test the change
- Any required setup (e.g. multiple players, bots, specific
configuration)
- Expected behavior and how to verify it

## Complexity & Impact

Does this change add new decision branches?
- - [x] No
- - [ ] Yes (**explain below**)

Does this change increase per-bot or per-tick processing?
- - [x] No
- - [ ] Yes (**describe and justify impact**)

Could this logic scale poorly under load?
- - [x] No
- - [ ] Yes (**explain why**)
---

## Defaults & Configuration

Does this change modify default bot behavior?
- - [x] No
- - [ ] Yes (**explain why**)

If this introduces more advanced or AI-heavy logic:
- - [x] Lightweight mode remains the default
- - [ ] More complex behavior is optional and thereby configurable
---

## AI Assistance

Was AI assistance (e.g. ChatGPT or similar tools) used while working on
this change?
- - [x] No
- - [ ] Yes (**explain below**)

If yes, please specify:

- AI tool or model used (e.g. ChatGPT, GPT-4, Claude, etc.)
- Purpose of usage (e.g. brainstorming, refactoring, documentation, code
generation)
- Which parts of the change were influenced or generated
- Whether the result was manually reviewed and adapted

AI assistance is allowed, but all submitted code must be fully
understood, reviewed, and owned by the contributor.
Any AI-influenced changes must be verified against existing CORE and PB
logic. We expect contributors to be honest
about what they do and do not understand.

---

## Final Checklist

- - [x] Stability is not compromised
- - [x] Performance impact is understood, tested, and acceptable
- - [x] Added logic complexity is justified and explained
- - [x] Documentation updated if needed

---

## Notes for Reviewers

Anything that significantly improves realism at the cost of stability or
performance should be carefully discussed
before merging.

---------

Co-authored-by: Keleborn <22352763+Celandriel@users.noreply.github.com>
Co-authored-by: bash <hermensb@gmail.com>
Co-authored-by: Revision <tkn963@gmail.com>
Co-authored-by: kadeshar <kadeshar@gmail.com>
 2026-03-06 20:03:32 +01:00
Crow
14c77b1e7b
Remove instance strategies when leaving map (#2163) 
# Pull Request

Currently, dungeon and raid strategies, which are automatically added
when entering the applicable instance (unless disabled in config), will
persist until manually removed or until a different instance strategy is
applied. This is pretty bad because then bots will continue to check
triggers for the instance when outside of it.

This has been discussed for a long time, but after finally considering
it today, I think the solution is pretty simple because the existing
framework is already there. PlayerbotAI::ApplyInstanceStrategies() is
the function for enabling strategies when entering an instance, and it's
called whenever a bot changes maps. So all we need to do is to remove
all instance strategies first when calling it. I tested these changes,
and they worked for me, but obviously others should test too, and
especially the code should be examined since that is not my area of
expertise.

---

## Design Philosophy

We prioritize **stability, performance, and predictability** over
behavioral realism.
Complex player-mimicking logic is intentionally limited due to its
negative impact on scalability, maintainability, and
long-term robustness.

Excessive processing overhead can lead to server hiccups, increased CPU
usage, and degraded performance for all
participants. Because every action and
decision tree is executed **per bot and per trigger**, even small
increases in logic complexity can scale poorly and
negatively affect both players and
world (random) bots. Bots are not expected to behave perfectly, and
perfect simulation of human decision-making is not a
project goal. Increased behavioral
realism often introduces disproportionate cost, reduced predictability,
and significantly higher maintenance overhead.

Every additional branch of logic increases long-term responsibility. All
decision paths must be tested, validated, and
maintained continuously as the system evolves.
If advanced or AI-intensive behavior is introduced, the **default
configuration must remain the lightweight decision
model**. More complex behavior should only be
available as an **explicit opt-in option**, clearly documented as having
a measurable performance cost.

Principles:

- **Stability before intelligence**  
  A stable system is always preferred over a smarter one.

- **Performance is a shared resource**  
  Any increase in bot cost affects all players and all bots.

- **Simple logic scales better than smart logic**  
Predictable behavior under load is more valuable than perfect decisions.

- **Complexity must justify itself**  
  If a feature cannot clearly explain its cost, it should not exist.

- **Defaults must be cheap**  
  Expensive behavior must always be optional and clearly communicated.

- **Bots should look reasonable, not perfect**  
  The goal is believable behavior, not human simulation.

Before submitting, confirm that this change aligns with those
principles.

---

## Feature Evaluation

Please answer the following:

- Describe the **minimum logic** required to achieve the intended
behavior?
- Describe the **cheapest implementation** that produces an acceptable
result?
- Describe the **runtime cost** when this logic executes across many
bots?

---

## How to Test the Changes

- Step-by-step instructions to test the change
- Any required setup (e.g. multiple players, bots, specific
configuration)
- Expected behavior and how to verify it

## Complexity & Impact

Does this change add new decision branches?
- - [x] No
- - [ ] Yes (**explain below**)

Does this change increase per-bot or per-tick processing?
- - [x] No
- - [ ] Yes (**describe and justify impact**)

Could this logic scale poorly under load?
- - [x] No
- - [ ] Yes (**explain why**)
---

## Defaults & Configuration

Does this change modify default bot behavior?
- - [x] No
- - [ ] Yes (**explain why**)

If this introduces more advanced or AI-heavy logic:
- - [x] Lightweight mode remains the default
- - [ ] More complex behavior is optional and thereby configurable
---

## AI Assistance

Was AI assistance (e.g. ChatGPT or similar tools) used while working on
this change?
- - [ ] No
- - [x] Yes (**explain below**)

If yes, please specify:

- AI tool or model used (e.g. ChatGPT, GPT-4, Claude, etc.)
- Purpose of usage (e.g. brainstorming, refactoring, documentation, code
generation)
- Which parts of the change were influenced or generated
- Whether the result was manually reviewed and adapted

AI assistance is allowed, but all submitted code must be fully
understood, reviewed, and owned by the contributor.
Any AI-influenced changes must be verified against existing CORE and PB
logic. We expect contributors to be honest
about what they do and do not understand.

I used Gemini to verify that my idea would work and had it put together
the actual code for me.

---

## Final Checklist

- - [x] Stability is not compromised
- - [x] Performance impact is understood, tested, and acceptable
- - [x] Added logic complexity is justified and explained
- - [x] Documentation updated if needed

---

## Notes for Reviewers

Anything that significantly improves realism at the cost of stability or
performance should be carefully discussed
before merging.

---------

Co-authored-by: Keleborn <22352763+Celandriel@users.noreply.github.com>
Co-authored-by: bash <hermensb@gmail.com>
Co-authored-by: Revision <tkn963@gmail.com>
Co-authored-by: kadeshar <kadeshar@gmail.com>
 2026-03-06 10:50:00 -08:00
Hokken
788c7b025b
Fix quest links triggering trade window (#2155) 
## Summary

`ChatHelper::parseable()` matched any hyperlink containing `|H`,
including quest links (`|Hquest:`), achievement links, spell links, etc.
This caused bots to interpret quest links shared in party chat as item
trade requests, opening the trade window instead of ignoring them.

Narrowed the check from `"|H"` to `"|Hitem:"` so only actual item links
trigger the parseable/trade logic.

**One-line change** in `src/Bot/Cmd/ChatHelper.cpp:603`

## Root Cause

The WoW client uses `|H<type>:<id>|h[Name]|h` hyperlinks for many object
types:
- `|Hitem:12345|h[Item Name]|h` — items
- `|Hquest:678|h[Quest Name]|h` — quests  
- `|Hspell:890|h[Spell Name]|h` — spells
- `|Hachievement:...|h` — achievements

The old check `text.find("|H")` matched ALL of these, so sharing a quest
link in party chat would cause the bot to enter the item parsing/trade
flow.

## Test Scenarios

| Scenario | Before | After |
|----------|--------|-------|
| Share `[Quest Name]` in party chat | Trade window opens | No reaction
(correct) |
| Share `[Item Name]` in party chat | Trade window opens | Trade window
opens (unchanged) |
| Say "questitem" in chat | Parsed correctly | Parsed correctly
(unchanged) |
| Share `[Spell Name]` in party chat | Trade window opens | No reaction
(correct) |

Tested on AzerothCore 3.3.5a with mod-playerbots, confirmed fix resolves
the issue.

---------

Co-authored-by: Keleborn <22352763+Celandriel@users.noreply.github.com>
Co-authored-by: bash <hermensb@gmail.com>
Co-authored-by: Hokken <Hokken@users.noreply.github.com>
Co-authored-by: Claude Opus 4.6 <noreply@anthropic.com>
 2026-03-06 09:41:40 -08:00
NoxMax
ca9f23a8e3
Fix/Defensive: Prevent division by zero in MovementActions (#2185) 
Added a check to prevent division by zero for orphaned raid groups.

# Pull Request

If a bots somehow ends up alone in a raid group, this can divide by zero
and freeze the server.

---

## Design Philosophy

We prioritize **stability, performance, and predictability** over
behavioral realism.
Complex player-mimicking logic is intentionally limited due to its
negative impact on scalability, maintainability, and
long-term robustness.

Excessive processing overhead can lead to server hiccups, increased CPU
usage, and degraded performance for all
participants. Because every action and
decision tree is executed **per bot and per trigger**, even small
increases in logic complexity can scale poorly and
negatively affect both players and
world (random) bots. Bots are not expected to behave perfectly, and
perfect simulation of human decision-making is not a
project goal. Increased behavioral
realism often introduces disproportionate cost, reduced predictability,
and significantly higher maintenance overhead.

Every additional branch of logic increases long-term responsibility. All
decision paths must be tested, validated, and
maintained continuously as the system evolves.
If advanced or AI-intensive behavior is introduced, the **default
configuration must remain the lightweight decision
model**. More complex behavior should only be
available as an **explicit opt-in option**, clearly documented as having
a measurable performance cost.

Principles:

- **Stability before intelligence**  
  A stable system is always preferred over a smarter one.

- **Performance is a shared resource**  
  Any increase in bot cost affects all players and all bots.

- **Simple logic scales better than smart logic**  
Predictable behavior under load is more valuable than perfect decisions.

- **Complexity must justify itself**  
  If a feature cannot clearly explain its cost, it should not exist.

- **Defaults must be cheap**  
  Expensive behavior must always be optional and clearly communicated.

- **Bots should look reasonable, not perfect**  
  The goal is believable behavior, not human simulation.

Before submitting, confirm that this change aligns with those
principles.

---

## Feature Evaluation

Please answer the following:

- Describe the **minimum logic** required to achieve the intended
behavior?
- Describe the **cheapest implementation** that produces an acceptable
result?
- Describe the **runtime cost** when this logic executes across many
bots?

This is the simplest and cheapest way to implement this fix.

---

## How to Test the Changes

- Step-by-step instructions to test the change
- Any required setup (e.g. multiple players, bots, specific
configuration)
- Expected behavior and how to verify it

The fix is a self-evident defensive measure.

## Complexity & Impact

Does this change add new decision branches?
- - [x] No
- - [ ] Yes (**explain below**)

Does this change increase per-bot or per-tick processing?
- - [x] No
- - [ ] Yes (**describe and justify impact**)

Could this logic scale poorly under load?
- - [x] No
- - [ ] Yes (**explain why**)
---

## Defaults & Configuration

Does this change modify default bot behavior?
- - [x] No
- - [ ] Yes (**explain why**)

If this introduces more advanced or AI-heavy logic:
- - [x] Lightweight mode remains the default
- - [ ] More complex behavior is optional and thereby configurable
---

## AI Assistance

Was AI assistance (e.g. ChatGPT or similar tools) used while working on
this change?
- - [ ] No
- - [x] Yes (**explain below**)

Core dump logs analysis to find this problem.

If yes, please specify:

- AI tool or model used (e.g. ChatGPT, GPT-4, Claude, etc.)
- Purpose of usage (e.g. brainstorming, refactoring, documentation, code
generation)
- Which parts of the change were influenced or generated
- Whether the result was manually reviewed and adapted

AI assistance is allowed, but all submitted code must be fully
understood, reviewed, and owned by the contributor.
Any AI-influenced changes must be verified against existing CORE and PB
logic. We expect contributors to be honest
about what they do and do not understand.

---

## Final Checklist

- - [x] Stability is not compromised
- - [x] Performance impact is understood, tested, and acceptable
- - [x] Added logic complexity is justified and explained
- - [x] Documentation updated if needed

---

## Notes for Reviewers

Anything that significantly improves realism at the cost of stability or
performance should be carefully discussed
before merging.
 2026-03-06 07:59:36 -08:00
Rikus Louw
ed81a43403
Added all TBC attunement quests (#2179) 
# Pull Request

Added all TBC attunement quests to conf

---

## Design Philosophy

We prioritize **stability, performance, and predictability** over
behavioral realism.
Complex player-mimicking logic is intentionally limited due to its
negative impact on scalability, maintainability, and
long-term robustness.

Excessive processing overhead can lead to server hiccups, increased CPU
usage, and degraded performance for all
participants. Because every action and
decision tree is executed **per bot and per trigger**, even small
increases in logic complexity can scale poorly and
negatively affect both players and
world (random) bots. Bots are not expected to behave perfectly, and
perfect simulation of human decision-making is not a
project goal. Increased behavioral
realism often introduces disproportionate cost, reduced predictability,
and significantly higher maintenance overhead.

Every additional branch of logic increases long-term responsibility. All
decision paths must be tested, validated, and
maintained continuously as the system evolves.
If advanced or AI-intensive behavior is introduced, the **default
configuration must remain the lightweight decision
model**. More complex behavior should only be
available as an **explicit opt-in option**, clearly documented as having
a measurable performance cost.

Principles:

- **Stability before intelligence**  
  A stable system is always preferred over a smarter one.

- **Performance is a shared resource**  
  Any increase in bot cost affects all players and all bots.

- **Simple logic scales better than smart logic**  
Predictable behavior under load is more valuable than perfect decisions.

- **Complexity must justify itself**  
  If a feature cannot clearly explain its cost, it should not exist.

- **Defaults must be cheap**  
  Expensive behavior must always be optional and clearly communicated.

- **Bots should look reasonable, not perfect**  
  The goal is believable behavior, not human simulation.

Before submitting, confirm that this change aligns with those
principles.

---

## Feature Evaluation

Please answer the following:

- Describe the **minimum logic** required to achieve the intended
behavior?
- Describe the **cheapest implementation** that produces an acceptable
result?
- Describe the **runtime cost** when this logic executes across many
bots?

---

## How to Test the Changes

- Step-by-step instructions to test the change
Run maintenance on bots
- Any required setup (e.g. multiple players, bots, specific
configuration)
This only applies to Individual Progression mod, since attunements
aren't required in base AC
- Expected behavior and how to verify it
Bots should be able to enter:
- The Eye (Tempest Keep)
- Mount Hyjal
- Black Temple

## Complexity & Impact

Does this change add new decision branches?
- - [x] No
- - [ ] Yes (**explain below**)

Does this change increase per-bot or per-tick processing?
- - [x] No
- - [ ] Yes (**describe and justify impact**)

Could this logic scale poorly under load?
- - [x] No
- - [ ] Yes (**explain why**)
---

## Defaults & Configuration

Does this change modify default bot behavior?
- - [ ] No
- - [x] Yes (**explain why**)
All attunements for TBC are now added on 'maintenance' command

If this introduces more advanced or AI-heavy logic:
- - [ ] Lightweight mode remains the default
- - [ ] More complex behavior is optional and thereby configurable
---

## AI Assistance

Was AI assistance (e.g. ChatGPT or similar tools) used while working on
this change?
- - [x] No
- - [ ] Yes (**explain below**)

If yes, please specify:

- AI tool or model used (e.g. ChatGPT, GPT-4, Claude, etc.)
- Purpose of usage (e.g. brainstorming, refactoring, documentation, code
generation)
- Which parts of the change were influenced or generated
- Whether the result was manually reviewed and adapted

AI assistance is allowed, but all submitted code must be fully
understood, reviewed, and owned by the contributor.
Any AI-influenced changes must be verified against existing CORE and PB
logic. We expect contributors to be honest
about what they do and do not understand.

---

## Final Checklist

- - [x] Stability is not compromised
- - [x] Performance impact is understood, tested, and acceptable
- - [x] Added logic complexity is justified and explained
- - [x] Documentation updated if needed

---

## Notes for Reviewers

Anything that significantly improves realism at the cost of stability or
performance should be carefully discussed
before merging.
 2026-03-06 07:58:32 -08:00
Crow
80860d72a3
Some simple improvements to Karazhan strategies (#2173) 
# Pull Request

I've made a few simple changes to the Karazhan strategies that should
result in notable improvements in game.

- **Attumen**: I was using a GetExactDist2d() check for phase 2 when
bots stack behind him. That resulted in ranged bots being too close to
attack. It's now switched to the correct GetDistance2d() check to
account for the hitbox.
- **Maiden of Virtue**: The tank continuously ran side-to-side when
trying to tank her because it was trying to turn the boss with
TankFaceAction but not being able to due to being required to be within
a short distance of a set waypoint. I didn't understand the cause when I
was originally working on Karazhan. To fix this, a new multiplier
disables CombatFormationMoveAction (the "co+ disperse" strategy) and its
inherited classes, except for SetBehindTargetAction. The only other
class that inherits from CombatFormationMoveAction is TankFaceAction. I
disabled the parent class also because the ranged bots have a coded
positioning strategy and should not observe the co+ disperse strategy.
- **The Curator**: Same deal as Maiden with a new multiplier.
- **Nightbane**: Same deal as Maiden with a new multiplier.
- **Malchezaar**: Infernal avoidance for non-enfeebled bots had movement
priority set to MOVEMENT_FORCED. This was not good because it made bots
refuse to cross Hellfire so if you got unlucky, they could be stuck on
the other side of an Infernal from the boss and completely out of the
fight. MOVEMENT_FORCED needs to be reserved for situations in which the
bot absolutely cannot step in the AoE at all, and that's not the case
for non-Enfeebled bots here. Priority is now changed to MOVEMENT_COMBAT.

---

## Feature Evaluation

Please answer the following:

- Describe the **minimum logic** required to achieve the intended
behavior?
- Describe the **cheapest implementation** that produces an acceptable
result?
- Describe the **runtime cost** when this logic executes across many
bots?

No additional complication in logic from these changes, and additional
performance impact is exceedingly small (just a few more multipliers
with inexpensive checks that would apply only in Karazhan).

---

## How to Test the Changes

- Step-by-step instructions to test the change
- Any required setup (e.g. multiple players, bots, specific
configuration)
- Expected behavior and how to verify it

Should be straightforward. Engage the above-mentioned bosses in Karazhan
and observe the mechanics. I did test all of them.

## Complexity & Impact

Does this change add new decision branches?
- - [X] No
- - [ ] Yes (**explain below**)

Does this change increase per-bot or per-tick processing?
- - [ ] No
- - [X] Yes (**describe and justify impact**)

Barely due to the additional multipliers.

Could this logic scale poorly under load?
- - [X] No
- - [ ] Yes (**explain why**)
---

## Defaults & Configuration

Does this change modify default bot behavior?
- - [X] No
- - [ ] Yes (**explain why**)

If this introduces more advanced or AI-heavy logic:
- - [X] Lightweight mode remains the default
- - [ ] More complex behavior is optional and thereby configurable
---

## AI Assistance

Was AI assistance (e.g. ChatGPT or similar tools) used while working on
this change?
- - [X] No
- - [ ] Yes (**explain below**)

---

## Final Checklist

- - [X] Stability is not compromised
- - [X] Performance impact is understood, tested, and acceptable
- - [X] Added logic complexity is justified and explained
- - [X] Documentation updated if needed

---

## Notes for Reviewers

Anything that significantly improves realism at the cost of stability or
performance should be carefully discussed
before merging.

---------

Co-authored-by: Keleborn <22352763+Celandriel@users.noreply.github.com>
Co-authored-by: bash <hermensb@gmail.com>
Co-authored-by: Revision <tkn963@gmail.com>
 2026-03-06 07:58:02 -08:00
Alex Dcnh
18bd655869
Restore Naxx Strategies without core dependencies (#2031) 
### Summary
This PR restores the Naxxramas raid strategies that were removed in
commit 686fe513b25bbb20ccfcc89f08ee8c4b498a263e .
The reintroduced logic is core‑friendly (no AzerothCore script headers
or internal boss AI/EventMap dependencies), and the Naxxramas actions
have been refactored into per‑boss files for better maintainability.

### Motivation
The previous removal was meant to avoid core modifications and unblock
upstreaming.
This PR brings the strategies back while adhering to that requirement,
using only observable state and mod‑playerbots helpers.

### What’s included

- Re‑enabled the Naxxramas strategies previously removed.
- Replaced core script header dependencies with observable checks
(auras, casts, unit flags, flight state, etc.).
- Split the Naxxramas action logic into per‑boss source files to avoid a
“god file” and ease future maintenance.
- Minor, non‑intrusive behavior improvements aligned with existing
helpers.

### Future work
Some strategies may still require refinement or more advanced handling
later.
This PR focuses on restoring the baseline logic without core
dependencies, while keeping changes minimal and safe.

**Any contributions are welcome to further improve and fine‑tune the
Naxxramas strategies.**

### Testing
Tested in some Naxx boxx.
No server crash and boss killed :D

Note: I'll make another PR with revised scripts when this one are merged

---------

Co-authored-by: Keleborn <22352763+Celandriel@users.noreply.github.com>
Co-authored-by: bash <hermensb@gmail.com>
Co-authored-by: Revision <tkn963@gmail.com>
Co-authored-by: kadeshar <kadeshar@gmail.com>
 2026-03-06 07:57:21 -08:00
kadeshar
28a888b6e0
Added unobtainable items to config (#2133) 
# Pull Request

Moving hardcoded values to config

## How to Test the Changes

- use maintenance command
- unequip and destroy item get from this command
- turn off server
- add item to config
- turn on server
- use maintenace command
- check that different item was provided

## Complexity & Impact

Does this change add new decision branches?
- - [X] No
- - [ ] Yes (**explain below**)

Does this change increase per-bot or per-tick processing?
- - [X] No
- - [ ] Yes (**describe and justify impact**)

Could this logic scale poorly under load?
- - [X] No
- - [ ] Yes (**explain why**)
---

## Defaults & Configuration

Does this change modify default bot behavior?
- - [X] No
- - [ ] Yes (**explain why**)
---

## AI Assistance

Was AI assistance (e.g. ChatGPT or similar tools) used while working on
this change?
- - [X] No
- - [ ] Yes (**explain below**)

---

## Final Checklist

- - [X] Stability is not compromised
- - [X] Performance impact is understood, tested, and acceptable
- - [X] Added logic complexity is justified and explained
- - [X] Documentation updated if needed

---

## Notes for Reviewers
 2026-03-06 07:56:53 -08:00